Re: The NANOG Irrelevance? [Was: Re: mlc files formal complaint against me ]
Stephen Wilcox wrote: > > On 9 Oct 2007, at 18:39, Joel Jaeggli wrote: > >> Stephen Wilcox wrote: >> >>> >>> i'm not sure that sounds like improvement. why cant the charter just >>> allow them to decide a presentation is worth having without going >>> through all the hoops that Paul mentions if its appropriate? >> >> I don't recall feeling particularly bound by the procedure. In the sense >> that the procedure isn't limiting flexibility modula bill's issue which >> we have historically(over course of my experience) interpreted it rather >> liberally anyway. > > ok so you and bill are saying paul's summary is incorrect? We will consider late submissions particularly of timely material. They do get reviewed. We want slides! There's a finite amount of time in the agenda and in order to have a published agenda a month or more in advance we need to fill slots early so presentations submitted on time have an advantage. There are cancellations, and lightening talk slots so don't give up hope if you miss the deadline. > thats good too, if we are removing myths and misconceptions from the > nanog community. > > i look forwards to seeing paul's upcoming preso ;) At this meeting? we're out of slots. Lightening talk submission should open shortly. regards joelja > Steve >
Re: The NANOG Irrelevance? [Was: Re: mlc files formal complaint against me ]
On 9 Oct 2007, at 18:39, Joel Jaeggli wrote: Stephen Wilcox wrote: i'm not sure that sounds like improvement. why cant the charter just allow them to decide a presentation is worth having without going through all the hoops that Paul mentions if its appropriate? I don't recall feeling particularly bound by the procedure. In the sense that the procedure isn't limiting flexibility modula bill's issue which we have historically(over course of my experience) interpreted it rather liberally anyway. ok so you and bill are saying paul's summary is incorrect? thats good too, if we are removing myths and misconceptions from the nanog community. i look forwards to seeing paul's upcoming preso ;) Steve
Re: The NANOG Irrelevance? [Was: Re: mlc files formal complaint against me ]
Stephen Wilcox wrote: > > i'm not sure that sounds like improvement. why cant the charter just > allow them to decide a presentation is worth having without going > through all the hoops that Paul mentions if its appropriate? I don't recall feeling particularly bound by the procedure. In the sense that the procedure isn't limiting flexibility modula bill's issue which we have historically(over course of my experience) interpreted it rather liberally anyway. We'd like people to submit talks before deadlines (that's why there are deadlines). We recognize that topics come up at the last minute and we look for ways to accommodate them. We are under some pressure to get the schedule out far enough in advance that people can plan around the meeting. Which means there are fewer slots available at the last minute (reviews for this meeting started in early august). It's not fair to bump existing speakers, though sometimes there are cancellations. We have been successful enough at recruiting speakers that we do have to turn some away. This isn't academia we don't have a 4 to 1 or 8 to 1 acceptance rate it's more like 1.4 to 1 > Steve > >> >
Re: The NANOG Irrelevance? [Was: Re: mlc files formal complaint against me ]
On 9-Oct-2007, at 1206, Stephen Wilcox wrote: i'm not sure that sounds like improvement. why cant the charter just allow them to decide a presentation is worth having without going through all the hoops that Paul mentions if its appropriate? I think the charter gives the PC lots of latitude (and will give the PC more latitude if the amendment that Bill mentioned is passed). It has been my observation in past meetings that there are usually slots available for last-minute topics to be included, if the topics are pertinent and the material is good. I seem to think the Taiwan cable cut fell into that category during NANOG 39, but perhaps my memory is faulty. It seems possible that the PC didn't have space for Paul's presentation at the time he suggested it, or didn't think it was a good match for NANOG, or simply didn't like it. Joe
Re: The NANOG Irrelevance? [Was: Re: mlc files formal complaint against me ]
On 10/9/07, Stephen Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There is a charter amendment on the upcoming election to strike that text > so the PC will have the ability to self manage their process of recruiting > and selecting talks and speakers. > > One can envision for example a variety of program committee solutions > including assigning a 90 minute section of the agenda to a group of 3 pc > members with expertise in routing, who recruit and coordinate the best > speakers they can find in this area on topics of significance to the NANOG > community. Their participation in the pc could then be valued based on the > quality of that section of the agenda. Etc. There are many ways to self > organize to create an agenda besides everyone submits a form and everyone > reviews everything. > > > i'm not sure that sounds like improvement. why cant the charter just allow > them to decide a presentation is worth having without going through all the > hoops that Paul mentions if its appropriate? > I want to make one thing clear: I brought up *one* way the PC process could remove the hurdles, not *the* way. The key point of the charter amendment is, let the PC do their job. It is up to the selected PC to determine a process for creating a good NANOG agenda. Specifying the process in the charter is too detailed. I think most people agree with that. To your point about the process being cumbersome I think the tough balance is between 1) consistency of process (everyone gets the same treatment, there are no fast tracks for friends and family) and 2) lowering/removing barriers and actively recruiting the really good speakers who may have little or no patience for the "formal" process. Some would say "Submit a talk, it gets accepted/rejected" is not overly onerous. I think there is more at stake than that. Some have to get approval for speaking, including reviews of what gets turned in, and everyone internally knows you have a talk turned in for NANOG so when it gets rejected you lose face a bit. Compare that to someone coming up to you and saying "I like the talk you gave here, and I'm trying to assemble a set of speakers for a 90 minute slot. Your talk, tuned down to 20 minute would be perfect. Would you speak in our 90 minute section at NANOG?" Here we see instant acceptance of talk, little consistency across potential speakers, but with accountability maybe this flexible model could work. I don't know how the future PCs will decide to divy up the work. I look forward to seeing if and how the agenda changes though using a different method than the current process of all reviewers reviewing all talks. Bill
Re: The NANOG Irrelevance? [Was: Re: mlc files formal complaint against me ]
On 9 Oct 2007, at 16:57, William B. Norton wrote: On 10/8/07, Paul Ferguson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: For instance: I made an offer a few weeks back to give a presentation on what ISPs could to do to help in fighting cyber crime. I was told that I need to follow "this procedure" and submit a proposal, etc., which is fine - I suppose. But it seems I have an easier time talking at other venues as "invited talks" where I don't have to jump through hoops to justify the content to a group of people who should already know me, and the quality of my content/context. The current charter mandates that all PC members review all presentations submitted for NANOG. No flexibility here. the charter is a working document.. There is a charter amendment on the upcoming election to strike that text so the PC will have the ability to self manage their process of recruiting and selecting talks and speakers. One can envision for example a variety of program committee solutions including assigning a 90 minute section of the agenda to a group of 3 pc members with expertise in routing, who recruit and coordinate the best speakers they can find in this area on topics of significance to the NANOG community. Their participation in the pc could then be valued based on the quality of that section of the agenda. Etc. There are many ways to self organize to create an agenda besides everyone submits a form and everyone reviews everything. i'm not sure that sounds like improvement. why cant the charter just allow them to decide a presentation is worth having without going through all the hoops that Paul mentions if its appropriate? Steve
Re: The NANOG Irrelevance? [Was: Re: mlc files formal complaint against me ]
On 10/8/07, Paul Ferguson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: For instance: I made an offer a few weeks back to give a presentation > on what ISPs could to do to help in fighting cyber crime. I was told > that I need to follow "this procedure" and submit a proposal, etc., > which is fine - I suppose. But it seems I have an easier time talking > at other venues as "invited talks" where I don't have to jump through > hoops to justify the content to a group of people who should already > know me, and the quality of my content/context. The current charter mandates that all PC members review all presentations submitted for NANOG. No flexibility here. But... There is a charter amendment on the upcoming election to strike that text so the PC will have the ability to self manage their process of recruiting and selecting talks and speakers. One can envision for example a variety of program committee solutions including assigning a 90 minute section of the agenda to a group of 3 pc members with expertise in routing, who recruit and coordinate the best speakers they can find in this area on topics of significance to the NANOG community. Their participation in the pc could then be valued based on the quality of that section of the agenda. Etc. There are many ways to self organize to create an agenda besides everyone submits a form and everyone reviews everything. Thanks for bringing it up Paul - I believe this will get better when the charter amendment is passed and the new PC builds the next NANOG agenda. Bill
The NANOG Irrelevance? [Was: Re: mlc files formal complaint against me ]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I realized after I sent that message that it was unfair of me to make statements without properly characterizing them with context. Let me say this: I believe NANOG has very much lost touch with the base of it's constituency. For instance: I made an offer a few weeks back to give a presentation on what ISPs could to do to help in fighting cyber crime. I was told that I need to follow "this procedure" and submit a proposal, etc., which is fine - I suppose. But it seems I have an easier time talking at other venues as "invited talks" where I don't have to jump through hoops to justify the content to a group of people who should already know me, and the quality of my content/context. For instance, I have an easier time talking at MAAWG, ACM Workshops, APWG Counter eCrime workshops, etc. And I say this not for my own issues here, but for others, as well. I have had some very fond memories of NANOG, insofar as it being an effective venue -- I'm not so sure any more. It's just not relevant in its current form. I guess what I'm trying to say, is that in your efforts to be effective, you are being self-defeating. Just one observation. Dismiss at will. - - ferg - -- "Paul Ferguson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: - -- "vijay gill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Really, reading this thread has left me stupider. I guess instead of > focusing on things like the lightweight agenda, abysmal content and > actual value to be had from NANOG, > I'm glad someone finally said it. This is partially the reason why I don't bother with NANOG any more. It is "governed" and bullied by a group of people who think way too much of themselves, and in fact, consume way too much bandwidth discussing themselves. Some of us have networks to tend, and other more pressing issues. $.02, - - ferg -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.3 (Build 3017) wj8DBQFHCxKxq1pz9mNUZTMRAu4yAKCAB7ljABvNgYF1CFLEEUw4R+/7GwCeOSPO ROlMoMezrNnWK4ZvU6XSqH0= =bOQE -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
