Re: mlc files formal complaint against me
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 12:11:17PM +0100, Stephen Wilcox wrote: [snip] > i guess it could be 'character assassination' or 'political' which > are both against the AUP [mild tangent: How can the blanket label of "political" be off-topic given the serious time and energy spent with both informed and otherwise posts about regulatory matters and related 'politics' that have direct bearing on Internet growth/deployment/operations? fodder for another time] The only seeming AUP transgression (a public industry figure's felony status isn't character assassination by any stretch) is that it is off-topic and content-free. Had the felony comment been part of a larger message with relevant content and then generated the same response, I would say the response was completely out of line. As it stands, seems like a 'normal' off-topic message that should have elicited a 'normal' personal warning. Why the SC was copied is a mystery to me unless the MLC think the SC is so out of touch that they do not pay attention to the mailing list. Regarding any individual SC member's behavior; isn't that why there are elections? If this off-topic post is getting a response, I presume others are as well. Since the SC hasn't (and shouldn't be) copied on any private warnings, I look forward to meaningful statistics in ABQ. -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
Re: More wiki questions...
On Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 01:17:37PM -1000, Randy Bush wrote: > Lynda wrote: > > I just hate politics, hurt feelings, and other stuff, so I'm asking here > > first. There's a nice NANOG 40 link on the front of the Wiki, but that's > > over. I'm thinking it ought not to disappear, but rather move off to a > > Prior NANOG Meetings (there's some great links to restaurants that I'd > > hate to see lost, and other useful stuff as well). Then there could be a > > NANOG 41 link instead (or perhaps a Current Meeting, which would lead > > off to NANOG 41 for now). > > sounds cool! good not to lose that stuff. Been done - see category past meetings and 'current events'. 39 (toronto) saw serious usage and that one is retaained. I started to try and backfiill some data but folks got up in arms about actually crediting the sponsors [shrug]. Great that people want to talk about the wiki here since attempts to gain traction on nanog-faq list failed. > > It's also my intent to look at the old FAQ, see what's missing in the > > Wiki (and there are some things, for better or worse, that might be), > > and put it all in one spot. Then, I really, really, really think that > > the FAQ ought to go away, to be entirely replaced by the Wiki (which is > > now far more up to date). > > seems like a plan Some shred of concensus regarding standards of content would ue nice. There's a raft of contradictory stufff that was introduced. NANOG 41 framwork dropped into place aa la 39 and 40. edit away! -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
Re: meeting in the Dominican Republic
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 06:29:44AM -0600, Pete Templin wrote: > Martin Hannigan wrote: > > >We already did, and, there are many factors that predispose this to a bad > >idea > >including language. You can start by lowering the $450 fee if > >things are so rosy that you have time, energy, and funds to start > >transporting meetings thousands of miles away. > > Seconded. Quite recently, there were serious financial considerations, > leading to the increase in meeting fees. Have things turned around so > quickly that we have the freedom to resume "experiments" with the > meetings? I'm thinking not, since the locations/dates of MERIT40 and > MERIT41 haven't been posted yet. Merit has not published the "official locations" yet, as that definition includes hotel contracts signed. Betty shared cities under discussion that were 'close enough' to let interested parties know, and IMO it helps to let interested _sponsors_ know which slots are worth tralking about hosting. That list of not-fully-contracted-but-highly-likely-to-be list was put up: http://nanog.cluepon.net/index.php/Current_events Cheers, jzp -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
Re: meeting in the Dominican Republic
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 03:43:58PM -0500, Martin Hannigan wrote: [snip] > Can you make a case of what benefit from a meeting in the DR > and who? If you can, I'd be sold, if it was determined to be > in NA. Creating new requirements is interesting. Once the 'Johnny Appleseed' spreading of awareness of this Internet thing was no longer relevant in the US due to the 'net being mainstreamed, please define the "case of benefit" that has been made about *any* of the meetings? Other than "attendees can go, at a reasonable price and with reasonable connecivity", what other meeting location constraints do we have? I can think of three: within the NA footprint, joint planning with ARIN for one meetinga year, and a host that can pay. This is not the joint meeting. Both attended costs and site connectivity have been subject to initial kicking of tires. The impetus for examining the location is a willing host. The entire point of this thread was to address the "attendees can go" question. Apparently, some have a specific definition of 'NA footprint'. The assumption that other parties would be offended was introduced. Since this is a group of those who practice applied science, I think facts are pretty relevant. Rather than speaking for a population, I talked to a colleague at LACNIC. His personal reaction was nothing but positive, and he indicated he'd get an official response. Again, the entire point of coming here was to seek input from a sample of attendees about any relevant attendance concerns. I'm glad we've seen some. jzp -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
Re: FYI - PC and review transparency vs anonymity
On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 03:41:53PM -0400, Martin Hannigan wrote: [snip] > Here are some facts: I think you mispelled 'vague handwavey opinions'. >BTW: Aren't we only supposed to have 16? 16 from the community and 1 Merit appointee. Keep up. -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
Re: FYI - PC and review transparency vs anonymity
On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 10:25:55AM -0700, William B. Norton wrote: [snip] > PROPOSAL: > I would like to propose a system whereby there is better: > > A) Accountability. The program committee members each have to find and > assemble 90 minutes of talks for the program at least once a year. > They are the point person for the topic and will "recruit and > sheppard" all potential speakers in that area. They are experts enough > to be responsible for the quality of the 90 minutes and are judged by > the Steering Committee based on their sessions. I'm not sure regarding time requirement [doesn't sound bad to me], but don't see how this makes the jump to a specific topic. I do think that in addition to the attendence data that's been provided, PC members should have a talks-solicited rating. Similar to other referal systems, adjust the online talk-submittal system such that at least one (likely more than one) PC members can be named as their motivator/contact ["so and so needled me until I sent this in", "such and such worked with me to drill the marketing out of the slides"] and bing we know they are drumming up business. > B) Transparency. The speaker prospects have the opportunity to have > frank brainstorming and discussion session with the Program Committee > member that is ultimately responsible for their section. The Program > Committee person will know what the speaker will say, why the talk is > important, and will ensure that if the talk is rejected, the rejected > speaker will understand why the talk was rejected. Good communication on rejection makes sense. I'm not sure if the shift to to a single SME makes sense: out of 16 PC folks I think there's more than a bit of subject and expertise overlap, don't you? :-) > C) Leverage the Expertise and People Network of the Program Committee. > The charter currently says that all PC members will review all talks, > a mistake in my opinion. The PC members are specialists and travel in > different circles if we (the Steering Committee) did our job right. I completely disagree. How can having more points of view -provided they are not vetoing 'because this doesn't interest me personally'- possibly be a bad thing given the well seasoned folks we have and expect to continue having on the PC? That level of specialization might be relevant if the PC has a time management issue (clump into SIG review groups with overlaps as needed) but until the 'not enough talks' problem is solved I'd suggest that pigeonholing PC members might not the best thing to do. Cheers, Joe -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
