William Norton wrote: > To me, the nanog-futures discussion is, how should/did this Steering > Committee/Program Committee apparatus, respond to complaints that > result from these failures? > > If there is to be a change to this very successful part of NANOG, is > it because it has become a fixture of NANOG? To repair some perceived > brokenness? To make it better or broader? > > What does the community think it should look like?
Leaving aside the issue of if/what failed for the moment... I think it would be remiss of the pc to not review the status of program elements. That would be an abrogation of the responsibility invested in the pc by the charter. Further I believe that PC review of a popular and successful program element would be with the goal of helping it grow. > Bill > > _______________________________________________ > 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
