North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: shim6 rides again (Re: protocols that don't meet the need...)
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 16:56:51 +0000 (GMT), "Edward B. DREGER" <[email protected]> said: [snip] > Per, I'd like to take exception with your "exclude small companies" > remark. This thread is about tighter engineering and ops involvement, > so why shoot down those who have the two tightly coupled? Why eschew > people who work both sides of the fence? Sorry, the following sentence came out all wrong due to last minute cutnpaste: Most nanog'ers, with the exception of those representing small companies which don't separate engineering from operations, belong in the engineering category anyway. ...quite the opposite of what I ment to say. Most nanog'ers work in engineering. The problem is a lack of ops-people turning these xOG-groups ito xEG-groups instead. PS! I prefer tight integration of operations and engineering. I'd say it's good for engineering-staff to do ops-work from time to time (eat their own dog food;). Organisations that practise job-rotation generally have the better solutions. //per -- Per Heldal http://heldal.eml.cc/
|