On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 5:12 PM, Alan Clegg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Mike Hughes wrote:
> > On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, vijay gill wrote:
> >
> >> In short, instead of coercive action, how about the presenters learn to
> be
> >> more relevant, interesting, or fun.
> >
> > I'll second that [...]
>
> If I were ever asked to present at NANOG and I were to see this comment,
> I'd be sure to strike that commitment off the calendar.
>
> I think that blaming the SPEAKER for not being relevant enough is a
> pretty damning condemnation of your program committee. Speakers tell
> the committee what they are talking about long before they are on stage.
>
> Not all speakers are "interesting" or "fun" -- perhaps because they are
> talking on topics that are .. uh .. technical and dry?
I am going to have to go ahead and call BS on this one there ok? I present a
few counter examples: fenyman for example, and tufte - he is talking about
graphs and statistics for crying out loud.
>
>
> Not everyone that you get to speak has a good background in giving
> presentations. Lots of them are technical folks that would rather be
> hacking code or manipulating routing tables than behind a microphone.
>
> Public speaking is a class that is pretty expensive, and lots of
> technical people don't get the opportunity to become professionally
> trained speakers because that's not what their job is and their
> employers would rather them be productive in the technical aspects of
> their job.
>
> Disrespect for a speaker that you feel is irrelevant, boring and un-fun
> just shows that you are a rude and elitist audience.
No, it means that the data presented were not interesting or that the
speaker was horrible. You need both to be true for people to become hostile.
I have seen speakers with excellent content and data and that had the
audience riveted because they data they were showing was excellent even
though they were non-native english speakers presenting to predominantly
english-speaking audiences.
>
>
> To be clear, I'm not advocating removing network access for the
> attendees, just a change of attitude regarding the appropriate use of
> the connection that is made available.
You can run your people should do x because it is expected of them and it
will fail at nanog because simply the group is very large now and people
have anonymity, therefore social coercion won't work either - you are not at
a dinner table at a senior faculty room at oxford, chatting over a glass of
port and a good cigar to 15 people. You are under the lights with 500+ of
your closest friends. The only thing that will work is either be
entertaining or be interesting - preferably both.
>
>
> AlanC {Dale Carnegie trained speaker, presenter, relevant, interesting
> and fun guy that had thought about presenting at NANOG, but won't now}
Talk is cheap. I have discovered a truly remarkable proof, which this margin
is too small to contain.
/vijay
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFIfMxVcKpYUrUDCYcRAt8EAJ0YCtrjamGWbZPT/AfHp4miujgjoQCbBTjj
> Rov5THNRhKgkWS10fQKRKeQ=
> =yZ7M
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
