Re: [Nanog-futures] New Membership-WG Draft

[Chris Malayter]

Kris,

Could you outline the changes for those who might not have seen the 
original bylaws yet.

Two issues I have,

1) The ED has to be a member in good standing?  So he has to pay to be a 
member to keep his job? :)

2) I'm not sure how happy I am to see student memberships gone.  I like 
the idea that a student could pay a reduced fee to be a member, yes I do 
realize that the student can still attend the meeting without membership. 
It's not really a deal closer for me.

For what it's worth.

-Chris


___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

[Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?

[Chris Malayter]

Greetings All,

What's the deal with the Peering BOF for NY?  I've heard rumors running wild 
that we're not going to have one, we're going to have one but Bill isn't going 
to run it, to we're moving to a peering track and a track bases system.

I would like to know what's the deal and would like to throw my support behind 
Bill for the 17 BOF's that he's done so far.  I think that kicking him out 
after all this time for a misplaced joke seems to be a bit over the top.

If nothing else, I would imagine that the numbers continuing to grow over time 
should show that the interest has not been lost, and that the people like the 
format and the effort that Bill puts into it.

If the PC is going to axe the BOF, I would like some transparency and 
explantion to the rest of us as to the rationelle so we can have it in the 
public forum for debate.

-Chris

___
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?

[Chris Malayter]

 thanks mr murdoch.

No problem Mr Hyde

 rumors of the bof's or bill's death are probably a bit exaggerated.

Was just trying to get some transparency as to what was going on with it.

 randy


Chris

___
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?

[Chris Malayter]

Hey Joe,

Would you ask the PC to release the minutes from the SJC nanog and any 
meeting since.

Thanks,

-Chris

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008, Joe Provo wrote:

 On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 03:12:55AM -0600, Chris Malayter wrote:
 Greetings All,

 What's the deal with the Peering BOF for NY?  I've heard rumors
 running wild that we're not going to have one, we're going to have
 one but Bill isn't going to run it, to we're moving to a peering
 track and a track bases system.

 As far as I know, the PC hasn't met to discuss the agenda for 43;
 if anyone has been other than drumming up talks, they are likely the
 ones jumping the gun. I would challenge anyone to look at the agenda
 just passed, past ones with multipart BoFs and Tutorials, et al and
 not see tracks.  Other than the word (and implied more space), what
 is so scary about 'tracks'? (no, that's a serious question)

 [snip]
 If nothing else, I would imagine that the numbers continuing to grow
 over time should show that the interest has not been lost, and that
 the people like the format and the effort that Bill puts into it.

 I don't think any suggestion of more times and formal slot on an
 agenda is anything but indication there is a great deal of support
 for peering items, but the surveys provide direct feedback.  The
 headcount in the room (170+ this go round) IMO speak to needing more
 resources than a small ad-hoc bof room.  When a BoF demonstrates
 such strong traction as the many year recurring, many hour consuming
 security and peering bofs, perhaps the legacy sentiment of past PCs
 need to be shrugged off and these be allowed to 'grow up' to larger
 agenda space.

 If the PC is going to axe the BOF, I would like some transparency
 and explantion to the rest of us as to the rationelle so we can have
 it in the public forum for debate.

 I think anyone who thinks that review of standing program elements
 like the rest of the program is the same as axing anything needs
 their head examined.  If people don't want to be transparent and
 share what they want to present to the PC, what puts them above the
 rest of the presenters?  Arbitrary program selection was one of the
 pre-open-process PC we all wanted to move away from, right?

 Joe, speaking for himself, and thinking the program submission tool
 is open so anyone interested in getting content submitted for
 NANOG 43 certainly can!

 --
 RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE

 ___
 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