On 11/18/2013 5:41 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
i am interested in learning about the substance of the effort, not
the foibles of system administrators. take that to nanog.
If the nanog skillset were even slightly relevant to the point of this
thread that might have been a reasonable suggestion.
Since that point seems to have been missed: The concern being expressed
was about the nature and credibility of the effort, with poor online
startup presence being taken as a negative indicator.
On 11/18/2013 6:17 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
But perhaps I can: do you want to stand outside adding yet more,
ahem, liquid, or do you want to go inside the tent on the
principle that you can then be one of the people pointing out where
the tent-poles ought to be?
Also,
set of supporting statements from very well-known folk who have
why? Why should this be an effort of the great and glorious? I'm
Again, this thread was dominated by questions about who the heck these
folk were and why their connections into the established (presumably
credible) world seemed so difficult to confirm.
Perhaps you've heard of web-of-trust? That's what was/is lacking.
As for tents and camels...
A guy comes up to you and asks for spare change. You have some, so you
give it to him. A bit later, another guy does the same thing. And so
do you. This keeps happening, but somewhere along the way, you realize
that you don't have infinite spare change and that you need to make
some resource allocation choices.
There are many tents, many camels, and a great deal of liquid flowing in
all directions. The mere announcement of yet-another tent does not
create a compelling incentive for being inside it, no matter how pretty
its interior decorating.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net