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.
Pretty odd rumors. Considering that a large portion of the PC has an extensive background in peering, and that all of the peering events are consistently popular among nanog attendees, I can't imagine why anyone would think that there is any kind of plan to eliminate them. That said, I personally think it is pretty inappropriate for us to assume that there will always be a standing Peering BOF, and that it will always be hosted by Bill Norton, without any review of the content or other submissions on the subject. Every other piece of content which is presented at NANOG, including every other BOF, is selected and approved by the PC as per their job description. Making a special exemption for Bill Norton (a member of the SC, which elects the PC) could easily give the impression of undue favoritism to the outside world, and defeat all of the work that has been put into providing openness and transparency into the process. As far as I am aware there hasn't been any official discussion regarding the peering events for NANOG 43 yet, but speaking strictly for myself here, my personal inclination would be to expand them and work to increase and improve their content, not the other way around. -- Richard A Steenbergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC) _______________________________________________ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
