Hey Joe, Would you ask the PC to release the minutes from the SJC nanog and any meeting since.
Thanks, -Chris On Sun, 24 Feb 2008, Joe Provo wrote: > On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 03:12:55AM -0600, Chris Malayter wrote: >> Greetings All, >> >> What's the deal with the Peering BOF for NY? I've heard rumors >> running wild that we're not going to have one, we're going to have >> one but Bill isn't going to run it, to we're moving to a peering >> track and a track bases system. > > As far as I know, the PC hasn't met to discuss the agenda for 43; > if anyone has been other than drumming up talks, they are likely the > ones jumping the gun. I would challenge anyone to look at the agenda > just passed, past ones with multipart BoFs and Tutorials, et al and > not see tracks. Other than the word (and implied more space), what > is so scary about 'tracks'? (no, that's a serious question) > > [snip] >> If nothing else, I would imagine that the numbers continuing to grow >> over time should show that the interest has not been lost, and that >> the people like the format and the effort that Bill puts into it. > > I don't think any suggestion of more times and formal slot on an > agenda is anything but indication there is a great deal of support > for peering items, but the surveys provide direct feedback. The > headcount in the room (170+ this go round) IMO speak to needing more > resources than a small ad-hoc bof room. When a BoF demonstrates > such strong traction as the many year recurring, many hour consuming > security and peering bofs, perhaps the legacy sentiment of past PCs > need to be shrugged off and these be allowed to 'grow up' to larger > agenda space. > >> If the PC is going to axe the BOF, I would like some transparency >> and explantion to the rest of us as to the rationelle so we can have >> it in the public forum for debate. > > I think anyone who thinks that "review of standing program elements > like the rest of the program" is the same as "axing" anything needs > their head examined. If people don't want to be transparent and > share what they want to present to the PC, what puts them above the > rest of the presenters? Arbitrary program selection was one of the > pre-open-process PC we all wanted to move away from, right? > > Joe, speaking for himself, and thinking the program submission tool > is open so anyone interested in getting content submitted for > NANOG 43 certainly can! > > -- > RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE > > _______________________________________________ > Nanog-futures mailing list > Nanog-futures@nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures > _______________________________________________ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
