I think I'd support them more if the document were a statement of principles rather than a set of rules. I don't think it's necessary to impose so formal a structure on the process unless the SC believes that good judgment is a less effective cover than process.
Secondly the document assumes that planning and approval of an experiment as part of the program is not in fact the responsibility of the program committee but rather of the SC. While the SC has that prerogative, the document should (I believe) reflect that the PC is responsible for the integration of of the experiment into the program and should unless something is badly wrong be involved in the approval process... The sense that i got from the previous exercise was that the community one the whole was not interested in experiments which were disruptivem and the document adequately captures that. Joe Provo wrote: > Heya, > > There have been periodic inquiries for network-based experiments > on the NANOG conference network. While there is a serious benefit > to be gained by experimenters exposing their projects to the NANOG > attendees, there is a need to balance that with meeting attendees > having a functional network during the conference. > > We'd like to hear the community's opinion on this. The SC has > drafted a "Network Experiments" policy based on prior experience > and what we think our conference attendees need to have available > while on-site. Please see the attachment below and share your > opinions and suggestions. > > Cheers! > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > 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
