On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Pete Templin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
> 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. That is a good point. > > 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 I'll try and think of a few. I think that the one I'm thinking about was a surprise, and you can't really know what every speaker is going to say or do when they get to the podium. It may not be solvable in that "context". > post-conference review of the talks that were accepted and a comparison > to the PC's opinions and comments of the slide presentations submitted. I did fill out a survey noting my concern. There was one other concern, now that we are in context mode, that I think could be helpful for the PC to evaluate when reviewing all of the things that they could review to get some more results. The lightning talk expansion is great. The format is "ok". I think that we should expand the time for lightning talks to include a 10 minute Q/A period at the end of the period instead of trying to cram questions into the end of the 10 minute time slot. We could take questions for all of the talks at the end period. I received questions about my talk in the hallways that the entire group did not get the benefit of (or the boredom in listening to) the answers. We might also want to invest in a timer that moves from green/yellow/red based on the alloted time. I noticed that some people were held to a rock solid standard, others weren't. It's distracting when the speaker gets verbal time warnings(not anyones fault, it just is). Time ticks are needed, but there's a better way to do it, methinks. > > (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.) I don't understand the correlation, but I'm not suggesting that we police talks from down here in the castle moat. Were you literally tossed out of the room? What's up with that? Best Regards, Marty _______________________________________________ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
