Hi Patrick, Patrick W. Gilmore said the following on 25/2/08 11:00: > > Let's stop dancing around the issue. There was discussion regarding > the Peering BoF amongst the SC & PC. There is no reason to hide this > fact - just the opposite. And there were at least some provisional > outcomes from those discussions. I am unclear on why those decisions > are not being announced to the community.
Yes, there was a brief discussion at the SC meeting on Wednesday - the PC Chair participates on the SC as an ex-officio member. (The minutes have just been passed on to Merit for publication - they will be at http://www.nanog.org/sc.minutes08.html, findable from the NANOG website home page under General Info -> Steering Committee.) We noted that complaints had been received about a particular item in the Peering BoF, and agreed that the PC should discuss closer review of the BoF content with the BoF organisers. We also discussed in general about BoFs that have become a fixture in the programme as opposed to being a once or twice occurrence (which is the more normal understanding of BoFs, I'd say). Both the Peering and Security BoFs have been a long term and an incredibly valuable part of NANOG for many years, so we felt that giving them the true recognition they deserved as an integral part of the programme would be something worth exploring moving forwards. And of course, being part of the programme would mean following the same processes for content review as the rest of the NANOG programme. I should mention, as an FYI, that both Peering and Security BoFs have been integral part of APRICOT for some time. Apart from the plenary session, APRICOT has parallel tracks (we call them streams). The organisers of both tracks taking the lead in organising their content in conjunction with the APRICOT PC. So formalising the long running BoFs at NANOG in a similar way should really not be seen as a backward step. > Either way, gossiping on a mailing list is not the right way. Certainly the rumour mill has been busy... > SC / PC members, please step up, so we can all go back to arguing over > leaking deaggs. :) Hopefully I've helped clarify. Now let's go back to talking about leaking prefixes... :-) philip SC Chair -- _______________________________________________ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
