John, We've had this for years. https://www.nanog.org/governance/attendance
If you notice similarities - they are intentional. If you notice differences - NANOG has always had a higher threshold for a frank exchange of views between participants. We have no desire to stifle that. Dan On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 11:18 AM Daniel Golding <dgold...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'd suggest that this is not an operation discussion and should be moved > to the NANOG Membership list. > > I don't see any violation of the presentation guidelines. Also, the day we > decide to censor ourselves to avoid offending vendors is the end of my > involvement in NANOG - and I suspect that is the case for many others. > > Matt is being coy, for some reason. He didn't like Dave Temkin's talk > about IXP costs. I listened very carefully and did not hear any specific > members or people targeted - only organizations and companies. > > NANOG is not and has never been a "safe space" for sponsors or > organizations that exist in the network space. It never should be. If LINX > or AMSIX or anyone else didn't like what was said, they should have rocked > the mic (which they did!) and they should come to the next NANOG and > present a counterpoint. > > Daniel Golding > (speaking in my personal capacity) > > > > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 11:10 AM Ca By <cb.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Tuesday, June 14, 2016, Patrick W. Gilmore <patr...@ianai.net> wrote: >> >> > On Jun 14, 2016, at 11:50 AM, Hugo Slabbert <h...@slabnet.com >> > <javascript:;>> wrote: >> > > On Tue 2016-Jun-14 10:12:10 -0500, Matt Peterson <m...@peterson.org >> > <javascript:;>> wrote: >> > > >> > >> This week at NANOG67, a presentation was given early on that did not >> > >> reflect well for our community at large. Regardless of the content or >> > >> accuracy of the data presented (not the intention of this thread), >> > specific >> > >> members of the community (some of which are sponsors) were clearly >> > targeted >> > >> in a hurtful manner. The delivery of the content did not seem within >> the >> > >> spirit of NANOG, but instead a personal opinion piece. While no >> specific >> > >> rules of the speaking guidelines >> > >> <https://www.nanog.org/meetings/presentation/guidelines> were likely >> > >> broken, this does bring up a point of where the acceptable threshold >> > exists >> > >> (if at all). To be abundantly clear - I have nothing against the >> content >> > >> itself, the presenter, the PC's choice of allowing this talk, etc. - >> I >> > only >> > >> wish to clarify if our guidelines need modernization. >> > >> >> > >> As a community, how do we provide constructive criticism to industry >> > >> suppliers (that may also be fellow competitors, members, and/or >> > suppliers)? >> > >> For example, router vendors are routinely compared without specific >> > names >> > >> mentioned (say in the case of a unpublished vulnerability) - how is a >> > >> service provider any different? >> > > >> > > I understand the discretion involved in your question, but could we >> > clarify exactly what presentation is being discussed so those of us who >> > were not present at NANOG67 can also participate in an informed way? >> > >> > I personally think the meta-question Matt asked is more important than >> > opinions on a specific presentation. Plus I worry about devolving into a >> > “that was a good preso” / “no it wasn’t!!” flamefest. >> > >> > >> Harassment policy is a good idea >> >> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/ietf-anti-harassment-policy.html >> >> Walking on eggshells because sponsors don't appreciate the message and >> find >> posting pictures of their dance parties while discussing >> non-profit financials is ... Or is that a different subtweet? >> >> We are talking about dnssec? >> >> To that end, let a million flowers bloom. >> >> It was a good relevant talk. >> >> Regards, >> C&J >> >> >> -- >> > TTFN, >> > patrick >> > >> > >> > >> >
