Chris Malayter wrote: > Hey Joe, > > Would you ask the PC to release the minutes from the SJC nanog and any > meeting since.
Given that the pc last met on tuesday at lunch, I think the minutes when released will prove to be a poor source the sort information you're looking for. What you liked, didn't like or would like to see on the program on the future would be highly appreciated. I gather you like to peering bof. What would you do to take to to the next level? Failing that, are their related communities of interest that need similar attention? > 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 > _______________________________________________ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
