Still, it didn't change itself, I don't expect. Some person or persons made that choice at some point in time, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to wonder who and more importantly *why*. What good is served by it? On Mon, Nov 10, 2025, 08:49 Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:
I mean, the reference to its previous existence was from 23 years ago. A lot has changed since 2002. I'm not totally sure the archeology is really worth it on this one, especially for a non-binding guideline.
On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 10:44 AM Dorn Hetzel <dorn@hetzel.org> wrote:
I'd be curious if anyone knows why the requirement was removed? Who thought that was a necessary and good thing?
On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 8:42 AM Tom Beecher via NANOG < nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
Bill-
My committee affiliations are not relevant. That being said if I am ever responding on behalf of one of my committee roles I always make that very clear.
The information in question is publicly available on the NANOG website. In fact, you found the link yourself. Any plain reading of that webpage answered your direct question as to what the current guidance is.
On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 9:34 AM William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
What should we consider to be the current guidance?
You linked to the currently published mailing list guidelines,
On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 6:16 AM Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote: therefore
you have already answered your own question. There is no current requirement for real names to be used on the mailing list.
You're on the NANOG Moderation Committee? No? Maybe let someone who is think about it and offer an answer.
Regards, Bill Herrin
-- For hire. https://bill.herrin.us/resume/
_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/RWUBHGVR...