I feel that that's a silly restriction to codify - you can't solicit sponsorships & be on the PC... There's a reason why it's a program committee and not a dictatorship. People in this community tend to have a very easy time sniffing out bullshit.
-Dave On 7/1/10 3:08 PM, Daniel Golding wrote: > Well, there is one bright line that (I think) everyone can agree with > - a permanent and hard separation of sponsorship and program. To the > point where people who handle the sponsorships must not be on the > program committee and vice-versa. > > Pay-for-play is fine at a certain sort of conference, but never for NANOG. > > - Dan > > On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Randy Bush<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> Betty did a very good job of getting us on this path. That was as >>>> opposed to Susan who was reflexively against anything that had the >>>> foul odor of capitalist enterprise. We need to continue to >>>> professionalize as the organization evolves. >>>> >>> Agreed. That was always one of the dimensions of the NANOG debate - >>> commercial vs. the original academic/research roots. I also believe >>> we err'd too far on the conservative side of commercializing NANOG. >>> >> imiho, there has been slow and cautious movement from our academic >> non-commercial roots toward more industry focus. one reason it has been >> slow is because there's no reversing direction if we think we have gone >> too far. >> >> randy >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Nanog-futures mailing list > [email protected] > https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures > _______________________________________________ Nanog-futures mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
