Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?
On Feb 25, 2008, at 6:39 PM, Philip Smith wrote: : I should mention, as an FYI, that both Peering and Security BoFs have been integral part of APRICOT for some time. Apart from the plenary session, APRICOT has parallel tracks (we call them streams). The organisers of both tracks taking the lead in organising their content in conjunction with the APRICOT PC. So formalising the long running BoFs at NANOG in a similar way should really not be seen as a backward step. Philip - I agree mostly with what you have said, but the conjunction with the APRICOT PC is a bit looser than I think you imply. Here is what I see. For the last bunch of years I have been leading the APRICOT peering tracks, typically a half day, once a full day, and this year we lengthened it to 1.5 days and called it the APRICOT Peering Forum. At APRICOT, as with NANOG, there is a CFP. I try and put in a plea in there specifically for Peering Coordinators/Network Engineers to talk about their peering experiences, buildouts, lessons learned, interesting traffic patterns, etc. across Asia and into the US. I do this to bring in those doing or involved in peering to the forum. Each year there are about zero talks submitted to the peering track or forum through this process. So I spend three months emailing, cold calling, IRCing, and encouraging folks that I see at other conferences to share the interesting stories that they shared with me in the hallways at these events, at the APRICOT Peering Forum. Months before APRICOT they are more often interested but non committal, not sure if they will attend APRICOT. Typically in the last month or so, folks decide to attend and I work with them directly to share a topic and abstract and talk for the peering forum agenda. I've been using google docs as the repository for the agenda, and have kept Gaurab (APRICOT Program Chair) in the loop as I go through the panic(we don't have enough topics/speakers), logistics issues(speakers cancelled, got sick, etc), all the way through to the ok, phew, we have a good agenda cycle. Maybe behind the scenes the program chair has shared/reviewed/ discussed the peering forum agenda with others, but my perception, as with the NANOG Peering BOF the last few years, is that it has been more analogous to Here is a 90 minute block for the Peering community, Bill - do the right thing. So, more of a hands off approach than 'conjunction with the APRICOT PC' is my perception. As for the Peering BOF XVII thing... Every peering BOF we try something new. Successes include the great debates. Failures or Controversial issues include the transit surveys and the attempted humor in the Peering News. We make mistakes and learn, and try not to make the same mistake twice. By trying something new each time, we will of course stumble upon corresponding successes and failures. That flexibility, informality, last minute stuff from the field is what makes the Peering BOF fun. To me, the nanog-futures discussion is, how should/did this Steering Committee/Program Committee apparatus, respond to complaints that result from these failures? If there is to be a change to this very successful part of NANOG, is it because it has become a fixture of NANOG? To repair some perceived brokenness? To make it better or broader? What does the community think it should look like? Bill ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?
Hallway discussions this past week in San Jose suggest some would like to see a more diverse selection of topics at the very least. Bill was asked on Wednesday not to make commitments until we, the NANOG PC, are able to review feedback and perhaps expand the cramped format into a track. Leave it alone. The one comment that I have to contribute for Bill is he should attempt to see if there's a way to make it not so clubby. Other than that, I support it being left alone unless there is a real problem. Bill should consider proposing the solution himself. I'm sure he can find one. -M ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?
Joel spewed: I think it would be remiss of the pc to not review the status of program elements. That would be an abrogation of the responsibility invested the pc by the charter. Further I believe that PC review of a popular and successful program element would be with the goal of helping it grow. Can we see the procedure that you're going to make up to do this first? -M ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?
--- On Wed, 2/27/08, Martin Hannigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Further I believe that PC review of a popular and successful program element would be with the goal of helping it grow. Can we see the procedure that you're going to make up to do this first? I'm not sure that pre-defining procedures of this type is helpful. Given that the general consensus is that the peering BOFs are successful and popular now, it's reasonable to expect that the PC has no desire to radically change things - this isn't in need of a serious overhaul. I suspect that writing procedures for a review of this nature would be harder than performing said review. David Barak Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise: http://www.listentothefranchise.com Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?
We consider the surveys, in addition to mailing list and hallway discussions. A rough cut from SJC was made available during the NANOG PC call this week but should be posted soon for NANOG42. Previous survey material - http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0710/surveyresults.html http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0706/surveyresults.html http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0702/surveyresults.html http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0610/nanog38_suvey_results.html http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0606/surveys/ etc. Cheers, -ren On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 10:33 PM, Martin Hannigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Joel spewed: I think it would be remiss of the pc to not review the status of program elements. That would be an abrogation of the responsibility invested the pc by the charter. Further I believe that PC review of a popular and successful program element would be with the goal of helping it grow. Can we see the procedure that you're going to make up to do this first? -M ___ 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
Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 11:23 PM, Ren Provo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We consider the surveys, in addition to mailing list and hallway discussions. I agree with the first two, but not the last. That's the clubby part. -M ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
[Nanog-futures] Let the Truth Be Told (was: The Peering BOF and the Fallout?)
I'm curious, why doesn't anyone mention the real reason SC and PC is so concerned with wbn's presentation? The word on the street is that Ted is the sole complainer, who took offense at his employer's logo being displayed during the BOF and has threatened to invoke the lawyers unless bill is brought under control. The word is that Ted was throughly inebriated throughout the entire conference, from drunken ranting at community BOF through bartenders refusing to serve him later on. Is that Urban Legend? Is that The Truth? Is that a Minor Setback for a Major Comeback? They Don't Know, but this might be The Truest Shit I Ever Said. Drive Slow, Paul Wall ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?
On Feb 27, 2008, at 8:51 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 11:23 PM, Ren Provo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We consider the surveys, in addition to mailing list and hallway discussions. I agree with the first two, but not the last. That's the clubby part. I disagree with this assessment of the hallway discussions. One of the things I really admire about the current PC is how they actively engage people between and after sessions to solicit feedback. It would be a mistake to ignore this, just as it would be a mistake to ignore any other form of input. Steve ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
