Martin Hannigan wrote: > Let me rephrase. I'm always skeptical when I hear terms like "a lot of > people told us..." or "everyone feels like" or "there's support for > xyz". > > Who feels like that? Who supports xyz? Who told us? One PC member just > put someone into "context" so I think it's fair to make sure we put > the entire issue into context.
I presented at NANOG42. After answering several individual questions off-podium, and getting kicked out of the room (gee, that wasn't nice), Todd provided some timely feedback (with good detail) on my presentation. Context? Let's see if that commentary makes it into the survey. If it does, great. If it doesn't, we have at least one datapoint that indicates that hallway polling is beneficial feedback which is not being captured (offered?) into the surveys. > I will restate it. I support the Peernig BoF. Can we now do other > things like figure out how to not let marketing talks slip into the > program? Any ideas on how to achieve that? Only thing I can think of is a PC post-conference review of the talks that were accepted and a comparison to the PC's opinions and comments of the slide presentations submitted. (Interesting observations come to mind though: ex-MLC members have told me to 'put up or shut up' when trying to discuss how continental borders should influence on/off-topicness, but now a current (last I checked) MLC member thinks "we" should figure out how to police the talks. Such a varied group are we.) pt _______________________________________________ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
