Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 2:06 AM, Steve Feldman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 Let me rephrase. I'm always skeptical when I hear terms like a lot of people told us... or everyone feels like or there's support for xyz. Who feels like that? Who supports xyz? Who told us? One PC member just put someone into context so I think it's fair to make sure we put the entire issue into context. I will restate it. I support the Peernig BoF. Can we now do other things like figure out how to not let marketing talks slip into the program? Best, Marty -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?
Martin Hannigan wrote: Let me rephrase. I'm always skeptical when I hear terms like a lot of people told us... or everyone feels like or there's support for xyz. Who feels like that? Who supports xyz? Who told us? One PC member just put someone into context so I think it's fair to make sure we put the entire issue into context. I presented at NANOG42. After answering several individual questions off-podium, and getting kicked out of the room (gee, that wasn't nice), Todd provided some timely feedback (with good detail) on my presentation. Context? Let's see if that commentary makes it into the survey. If it does, great. If it doesn't, we have at least one datapoint that indicates that hallway polling is beneficial feedback which is not being captured (offered?) into the surveys. I will restate it. I support the Peernig BoF. Can we now do other things like figure out how to not let marketing talks slip into the program? Any ideas on how to achieve that? Only thing I can think of is a PC post-conference review of the talks that were accepted and a comparison to the PC's opinions and comments of the slide presentations submitted. (Interesting observations come to mind though: ex-MLC members have told me to 'put up or shut up' when trying to discuss how continental borders should influence on/off-topicness, but now a current (last I checked) MLC member thinks we should figure out how to police the talks. Such a varied group are we.) pt ___ 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 Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Pete Templin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Martin Hannigan wrote: Let me rephrase. I'm always skeptical when I hear terms like a lot of people told us... or everyone feels like or there's support for xyz. Who feels like that? Who supports xyz? Who told us? One PC member just put someone into context so I think it's fair to make sure we put the entire issue into context. Context? Let's see if that commentary makes it into the survey. If it does, great. If it doesn't, we have at least one datapoint that indicates that hallway polling is beneficial feedback which is not being captured (offered?) into the surveys. That is a good point. I will restate it. I support the Peernig BoF. Can we now do other things like figure out how to not let marketing talks slip into the program? Any ideas on how to achieve that? Only thing I can think of is a PC I'll try and think of a few. I think that the one I'm thinking about was a surprise, and you can't really know what every speaker is going to say or do when they get to the podium. It may not be solvable in that context. post-conference review of the talks that were accepted and a comparison to the PC's opinions and comments of the slide presentations submitted. I did fill out a survey noting my concern. There was one other concern, now that we are in context mode, that I think could be helpful for the PC to evaluate when reviewing all of the things that they could review to get some more results. The lightning talk expansion is great. The format is ok. I think that we should expand the time for lightning talks to include a 10 minute Q/A period at the end of the period instead of trying to cram questions into the end of the 10 minute time slot. We could take questions for all of the talks at the end period. I received questions about my talk in the hallways that the entire group did not get the benefit of (or the boredom in listening to) the answers. We might also want to invest in a timer that moves from green/yellow/red based on the alloted time. I noticed that some people were held to a rock solid standard, others weren't. It's distracting when the speaker gets verbal time warnings(not anyones fault, it just is). Time ticks are needed, but there's a better way to do it, methinks. (Interesting observations come to mind though: ex-MLC members have told me to 'put up or shut up' when trying to discuss how continental borders should influence on/off-topicness, but now a current (last I checked) MLC member thinks we should figure out how to police the talks. Such a varied group are we.) I don't understand the correlation, but I'm not suggesting that we police talks from down here in the castle moat. Were you literally tossed out of the room? What's up with that? Best Regards, Marty ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
[Nanog-futures] Question about permanent bans
Do folks think that we ought to do a charter amendment to allow for permanent bans? That seems like a huge issue and that we may want to get an up or down vote. The way we would address it is either adding it as a power of the MLC, or even the SC -- then right a non charter procedure to develop the how. We have one person banned for life and a day and we don't seem to have a way to address that. We addressed it in v.01 of the MLC where we wanted the decks cleared of bans and added everyone back in, but then we were forced to re-ban said miscreant. Please advise. Marty (MLC) ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Question about permanent bans
Martin Hannigan wrote: Do folks think that we ought to do a charter amendment to allow for permanent bans? That seems like a huge issue and that we may want to get an up or down vote. The way we would address it is either adding it as a power of the MLC, or even the SC -- then right a non charter procedure to develop the how. We have one person banned for life and a day and we don't seem to have a way to address that. We addressed it in v.01 of the MLC where we wanted the decks cleared of bans and added everyone back in, but then we were forced to re-ban said miscreant. Please advise. I would do two things: characterize it as indefinite rather than permanent. Assign right of review to the sc without guidelines as to when or how review might occur. Marty (MLC) ___ 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] Question about permanent bans
On 28 Feb 2008, at 08:32, Joel Jaeggli wrote: Martin Hannigan wrote: Do folks think that we ought to do a charter amendment to allow for permanent bans? That seems like a huge issue and that we may want to get an up or down vote. The way we would address it is either adding it as a power of the MLC, or even the SC -- then right a non charter procedure to develop the how. We have one person banned for life and a day and we don't seem to have a way to address that. We addressed it in v.01 of the MLC where we wanted the decks cleared of bans and added everyone back in, but then we were forced to re-ban said miscreant. Please advise. I would do two things: characterize it as indefinite rather than permanent. Assign right of review to the sc without guidelines as to when or how review might occur. yes altho i would make sure that review occurs periodically.. these things are highly unusual (1 person in all these years) so i don't think it hurts to keep things in the discussion every few months. i was on that MLC and was disappointed it had to be that way you may even want to try unbanning some time just to test the water, that would seem to be within the spirit of things, no? Steve ___ 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 Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 09:48:30AM -0500, Martin Hannigan wrote: The lightning talk expansion is great. The format is ok. I think that we should expand the time for lightning talks to include a 10 minute Q/A period at the end of the period instead of trying to cram questions into the end of the 10 minute time slot. We could take questions for all of the talks at the end period. I received questions about my talk in the hallways that the entire group did not get the benefit of (or the boredom in listening to) the answers. Your talk was more than detailed and interesting enough to belong in the general session. Lightning talks shouldn't be used as an alternative to real presentations, or you suffer the consequences you mentioned above. Next time submit it for the general session, I for one would have voted for it. We might also want to invest in a timer that moves from green/yellow/red based on the alloted time. I noticed that some people were held to a rock solid standard, others weren't. It's distracting when the speaker gets verbal time warnings(not anyones fault, it just is). Time ticks are needed, but there's a better way to do it, methinks. Wholeheartedly agreed. Even a $5 alarm clock with a big LCD on the stage would be an major improvement, it's difficult to tell how you're doing for time or if you should speed things up or slow things down when you're in the middle of a presentation. -- Richard A Steenbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC) ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Question about permanent bans
Stephen Wilcox wrote: Assign right of review to the sc without guidelines as to when or how review might occur. yes altho i would make sure that review occurs periodically.. these things are highly unusual (1 person in all these years) so i don't think it hurts to keep things in the discussion every few months. i was on that MLC and was disappointed it had to be that way you may even want to try unbanning some time just to test the water, that would seem to be within the spirit of things, no? I would think that the basis for reconsidering an indefinite ban as the individual having suitably rehabilitated themselves in the eyes community. A ban should not be punishment for past misdeeds, rather a preclusion from future ones. The idea of a general amnesty at key inflection points is not a bad one. But revolutionaries can decide on their own whether throwing open the doors of the bastille is a good idea or not. Steve ___ 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] Question about permanent bans
Martin Hannigan wrote: I'm not proposing that Dean come back. He's incorrigable. We need to provide a method to allow for what we've done and to allow the SC to do what they do. House cleaning. In the procedures doc that I am about to post after I get initial thoughts on a few nagging questions, I address just that and define a procedure that has a permanent ban being recommended by the MLC but enacted upon by the SC. Blah blah blah. Etc. I support that line of reasoning. -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?
Richard A Steenbergen wrote: We might also want to invest in a timer that moves from green/yellow/red based on the alloted time. I noticed that some people were held to a rock solid standard, others weren't. It's distracting when the speaker gets verbal time warnings(not anyones fault, it just is). Time ticks are needed, but there's a better way to do it, methinks. Wholeheartedly agreed. Even a $5 alarm clock with a big LCD on the stage would be an major improvement, it's difficult to tell how you're doing for time or if you should speed things up or slow things down when you're in the middle of a presentation. When I mc part of the program, I have a powerpoint slide deck with 10 5 and 1 minute markers which I place in the plane of view of the speaker at the appropriate moments. Not sure if the lightning talks speakers appreciate that but monday 12:00-13:00 ran smoothly. ___ 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?
I'm sorry to be a bit contrarian here, but... Looking at the crowd that assembles for the peering BOF, it's clearly one of the more popular things on the NANOG program. It may not draw the raw numbers of people that the general session does, but it does tend to pack whatever room it's in. People in the room tend to be attentive and engaged, whether or not they have anything to do with peering. It's a lot of fun, and it's clear to me that enough attendees want it on the program for it to be worthwhile. That said, while the latest one struck me as a vast improvement over the last few, I can't say I've actually learned much from most of the recent peering BOFs or from the last few exchange point operator forums I've been to. The agendas tend to strike me as entertaining but recycled filler, perhaps useful for getting people into a room and talking, but not nearly what they could be. When I think back to the peering BOFs and exchange operator-sponsored forums of several years ago, I used to come out of them with some better understanding of how peering worked. There were talks on things like how much of peering traffic was P2P back when that was new and scary. Large parts of the program were made up of peering personals, where I would learn who was looking for what sort of peers. In addition, there were exchange operator-sponsored forums, in which people would give talks about peering-related issues they had faced and how they had solved them, observations about how peering worked in other parts of the world, views into highly secretive tier 1 peering operations, and the like. The exchange operator-sponsored forums are now gone, having been replaced by parties where the content consists of fake game shows. The peering BOF content now consists of things like the great debates, which while it's entertaining to to see people trying to justify extreme positions, never feel to me like they get anywhere close to establishing what the right answer to the question being debated -- presumably somewhere between the two extremes -- would be. So, I wouldn't suggest that the current peering BOF or exchange operator-sponsored forums go away. They're good fun social events and NANOG could often use more of those. But I don't think we've run out of new things to say, or new issues to address, in the areas of peering and other forms of interconnection. It would be nice if there were some more serious forums as well. (And yes, I know, this counts as sniping from the sidelines. The big impediment to what I'm asking for here is presumably having somebody step up and organize it). -Steve On Sun, 24 Feb 2008, Ren Provo wrote: On behalf of the NANOG PC: Nothing has been submitted in the NANOG tool and nothing has been declined. The survey results from NANOG42 this week have not been made available to the PC yet. We would like to review community feedback on this topic. 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. Thanks, -Ren Provo, NANOG Program Committee, Vice-Chair On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 8:00 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 24, 2008, at 12:57 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: Chris Malayter wrote: Would you ask the PC to release the minutes from the SJC nanog and any meeting since. Given that the pc last met on tuesday at lunch, I think the minutes when released will prove to be a poor source the sort information you're looking for. Let's stop dancing around the issue. There was discussion regarding the Peering BoF amongst the SC PC. There is no reason to hide this fact - just the opposite. And there were at least some provisional outcomes from those discussions. I am unclear on why those decisions are not being announced to the community. The question is where we stand in the process. If the PC does not have an official stance, then we should all stop speculating until there is an official stance or (hopefully) an official request for input from the community. If the PC has an official stance, then the community needs to hear it ASAP. Either way, gossiping on a mailing list is not the right way. We had a revolution, let's follow our own rules. As Randy like to proclaim every 14 ms, let's have some transparency. What was said, why was it said, and what decisions were made? SC / PC members, please step up, so we can all go back to arguing over leaking deaggs. :) -- TTFN, patrick ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org
Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?
It's distracting when the speaker gets verbal time warnings(not anyones fault, it just is). Time ticks are needed, but there's a better way to do it, methinks. [ clip ] When I mc part of the program, I have a powerpoint slide deck with 10 5 and 1 minute markers which I place in the plane of view of the speaker at the appropriate moments. Not sure if the lightning talks speakers appreciate that but monday 12:00-13:00 ran smoothly. Thanks for sticking your computer in front of us while we're talking? The point is that something non obtrusive would be better. The soft lighting of cue lights seems less intrusive, but they sure are damn expensive. I think I'll swing by Radio Shack and see if I can rig up a system for $10 + 9v. -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?
-Original Message- From: Martin Hannigan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 11:36 AM To: Joel Jaeggli Cc: nanog-futures Subject: Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout? It's distracting when the speaker gets verbal time warnings(not anyones fault, it just is). Time ticks are needed, but there's a better way to do it, methinks. [ clip ] When I mc part of the program, I have a powerpoint slide deck with 10 5 and 1 minute markers which I place in the plane of view of the speaker at the appropriate moments. Not sure if the lightning talks speakers appreciate that but monday 12:00-13:00 ran smoothly. Thanks for sticking your computer in front of us while we're talking? The point is that something non obtrusive would be better. The soft lighting of cue lights seems less intrusive, but they sure are damn expensive. I think I'll swing by Radio Shack and see if I can rig up a system for $10 + 9v. -M http://www.wholesalechess.com/chess/chess_clocks/ChessTimer+Plus+Digital+Chess+Clock?ac=froogl Regards, Mike PGP.sig Description: PGP signature ___ 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?
Martin Hannigan wrote: It's distracting when the speaker gets verbal time warnings(not anyones fault, it just is). Time ticks are needed, but there's a better way to do it, methinks. [ clip ] When I mc part of the program, I have a powerpoint slide deck with 10 5 and 1 minute markers which I place in the plane of view of the speaker at the appropriate moments. Not sure if the lightning talks speakers appreciate that but monday 12:00-13:00 ran smoothly. Thanks for sticking your computer in front of us while we're talking? I knew I could count on a contrarian opinion from someplace... Personally I've found it less intrusive than poking the speaker or using hand gestures... The point is that something non obtrusive would be better. The soft lighting of cue lights seems less intrusive, but they sure are damn expensive. I think I'll swing by Radio Shack and see if I can rig up a system for $10 + 9v. Alternate attempts at improvisation are of course welcome... ;) -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 Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 3:05 PM, Joel Jaeggli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Martin Hannigan wrote: [ clip ] The point is that something non obtrusive would be better. The soft lighting of cue lights seems less intrusive, but they sure are damn expensive. I think I'll swing by Radio Shack and see if I can rig up a system for $10 + 9v. Alternate attempts at improvisation are of course welcome... ;) I did swing by Radio Shack. It can be done, but then I thought about it and the professional queue system was $1500. I think that Merit should make an investment in it to improve the conference and speaking experience. It would be well worth it in terms of making things run smoother. The name of what appears to be the leading company in cue lights is DSAN, and I think that the PC could come up with the requirements and then select a proper system. ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
[Nanog-futures] Countdown Timer (Was Re: The Peering BOF and the Fallout?)
On Feb 29, 2008, at 11:35 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote: On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 3:05 PM, Joel Jaeggli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Martin Hannigan wrote: [ clip ] The point is that something non obtrusive would be better. The soft lighting of cue lights seems less intrusive, but they sure are damn expensive. I think I'll swing by Radio Shack and see if I can rig up a system for $10 + 9v. Alternate attempts at improvisation are of course welcome... ;) I did swing by Radio Shack. It can be done, but then I thought about it and the professional queue system was $1500. I think that Merit should make an investment in it to improve the conference and speaking experience. It would be well worth it in terms of making things run smoother. One of the best conferences I have ever spoken at (Next Generation Networks) had an alternative solution. They had two monitors on the floor angled up towards the speaker, one of which ran something like Joel's full screen Powerpoint countdown timer. It showed with green background from 20:00 down to 05:00, then Yellow 05:00 down to 02:00, and finally red from 02:00 to 00:00 and then it stopped/flashed. At least that is my memory. It was non-obtrusive; you tended to see it when you looked out to the audience. They also found a way for the speaker not to have their laptop screen flipped open preventing the audience (or the video camera) from seeing their face. They made sure the speaker didn't have their badge on, as it would flash the lights reflection to the video camera. I also like that they wired the clip on microphones under your shirt so you would see the wires nor pull out the microphone accidentally. Very professional. Bill ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
