Talk:The NANOG Mailing List
True to the original, but thick top-level. Having the contents scroll down the screen is a lose. Maybe break into five sections with sub-pages: subscriptions and related lists; AUP and posting convetions; on-topic; off-topic; repetative. Jzp-nfaq
Instead of criticizing work that was undertaken to get started, why not just shut up and edit?
I have been, just not making wholesale changes to structure. The point of a wiki is to be collaborative, so instead of just changing it, wacky old me, I was suggesting to see what anyone else thought. Jzp-nfaq 23:32, 8 August 2006 (GMT)
This page has references to peeringdb. There is likely to be disagreements over peeringdb.com being the "de facto" standard, but strictly speaking it does seem to meet the definition. I'd say if someone else stands up to say they are also a standard, we could compare usage, content, etc. and I have a feeling that pdb would top out. It's still neutral to call something a standard in one shape or another.
--Marty 22:28, 11 August 2006 (GMT)
This is still pretty freaking unwieldy - way too much scrolling required, even if we clobbered the TOC. What would folks think of grouping the administrative/mechanics (sections 1 & 2: subscription, aup, etc) and the content (sectiosn 3 & 4: relevant and .... not-so-relevant topics) to make 'em more managable?
jzp 22:09, 21 August 2006 (GMT)
Looks like equinix or at&t is at work
" Exchange Point Fabric (IXPs)
An exchange point's public fabric is a shared infrastructure managed by a third party. These generally represent some measure of shared resource utilization, and a low-risk option for multiplexing traffic. See also wikipedia entry for public peering. "
First, why point at the Wiki versions at all if they are going to be disclaimed. NANOG Wiki should be authoratative and Wikipedia can point here.
Second, IXP's are NOT low risk or there would be no such thing as PNI's.
Believe whatever you like - just myself at work, no one's interest for or against anything. Most of the planet has no issues with exchanges, and the previous verbiage both lacked any mention of them and implied that they were useless. Regarding "low risk" the implication was low investment risk/abilityt to gain a number of fihs in one net. Will come up with better content since none was suggested.
Regarding wikipedia: the only way to defuse any astroturfing and such is to call it out, not ignore it.
--jzp 01:21, 24 August 2006 (GMT)
The other references exit. Pointing out they are asstrotufed can only HELP as some marketing drone orr PHB will point to wikipedia as a reference just like marketing drivel is passed off at a reference. As much as you would like to say "we're authoritative" the simple fact is that the other references will exist.
I'll say it again - ignoring the errors elsewhere is just bogus. There is certainly not any ignoring of marketing from equinix going on in your contribution. We can be above the wikimedia fray by saying "It means this and that other resource over here gets corrrupted so take it with a hundred grains of salt".
They -and this dispute- should get moved to the glossary come to think of it. --jzp 15:34, 24 August 2006 (GMT)
Page layout, screen real estate
A table to throw the related 'meta' grunk in one section, wikifying into sub-articles. If people like it, next step would be doing a similar thing to the "appropriate" and "inappropriate" topics & turning off the TOC. Hard to not require click-through and still reduce scrolling; maybe whichever subsection is deemed most important (the administrivia? the content guidelines? on-topic specifics? off-topc specifics? faqs?) go on the bottom of the page and the tables of lists remain floating at the top?
dunno, just throwing stuff out. --jzp 22:44, 24 August 2006 (GMT)
Why give them any credence? If they edit here they WILL be deleted. Wikipedia is another story. Wikipedia is pretty much a tool of the uneducated. This doesn't really have to be. Sure, anyone can edit here, but if it does have to be extensively edited, it's small enough that it can - hence it should be authoratative over Wikipedia.
--Marty 22:58, 24 August 2006 (GMT)
i like the mailing list layout much better. perhaps the mailing list admins should take over and the FAQ people can modify the NAONG site to refer here, if they haven't already.
Are there user stats available anywhere? It would be interested to see how much time was wasted, if any.
--Marty 00:04, 27 August 2006 (GMT)