On 10/9/07, vijay gill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 10/8/07, Joel Jaeggli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Martin Hannigan wrote: > > > How do we determine what people do want to read vs. what they don't? > > > It would be nice to have some direction. I don't mean from futures, > > > there's nobody really here, but I mean community wide overall? How do > > > we determine what people "really" want to hear about and act > > > accordingly? > > > > I'm pretty sure I know what I don't want to hear about on futures in the > > next day or so... > > > > For the community meeting assuming anyone shows up this time I think it > > would be reasonable to engage in a Socratic dialog about whether the > > volunteer governance structure we have is better serving us then the one > > we had, not out of nostalgia, there's no going back, only forward. > > > Really, reading this thread has left me stupider. I guess instead of > focusing on things like the lightweight agenda, abysmal content and actual > value to be had from NANOG, we are getting tied up discussing an offhand > remark about a convicted felon. I submit that nanog as a whole is stupider > under this formal SC/MLC/PC/whatever than when it was under the benevolent > dictatorship of Susan.
I'm not going to say you're wrong, but everytime those topics come up the machine comes out in full force. But that's what we created, the machine. -M<
