On 10/9/07, Stephen Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > > There is a charter amendment on the upcoming election to strike that text > so the PC will have the ability to self manage their process of recruiting > and selecting talks and speakers. > > One can envision for example a variety of program committee solutions > including assigning a 90 minute section of the agenda to a group of 3 pc > members with expertise in routing, who recruit and coordinate the best > speakers they can find in this area on topics of significance to the NANOG > community. Their participation in the pc could then be valued based on the > quality of that section of the agenda. Etc. There are many ways to self > organize to create an agenda besides everyone submits a form and everyone > reviews everything. > > > i'm not sure that sounds like improvement. why cant the charter just allow > them to decide a presentation is worth having without going through all the > hoops that Paul mentions if its appropriate? >
I want to make one thing clear: I brought up *one* way the PC process could remove the hurdles, not *the* way. The key point of the charter amendment is, let the PC do their job. It is up to the selected PC to determine a process for creating a good NANOG agenda. Specifying the process in the charter is too detailed. I think most people agree with that. -------------------------------- To your point about the process being cumbersome.... I think the tough balance is between 1) consistency of process (everyone gets the same treatment, there are no fast tracks for friends and family) and 2) lowering/removing barriers and actively recruiting the really good speakers who may have little or no patience for the "formal" process. Some would say "Submit a talk, it gets accepted/rejected" is not overly onerous. I think there is more at stake than that. Some have to get approval for speaking, including reviews of what gets turned in, and everyone internally knows you have a talk turned in for NANOG so when it gets rejected you lose face a bit. Compare that to someone coming up to you and saying "I like the talk you gave here, and I'm trying to assemble a set of speakers for a 90 minute slot. Your talk, tuned down to 20 minute would be perfect. Would you speak in our 90 minute section at NANOG?" Here we see instant acceptance of talk, little consistency across potential speakers, but with accountability maybe this flexible model could work. I don't know how the future PCs will decide to divy up the work. I look forward to seeing if and how the agenda changes though using a different method than the current process of all reviewers reviewing all talks. Bill
