Re: [Nanog-futures] an alternate proposal for NewNOG ’s membership structure
- Original Message From: Joe Abley jab...@hopcount.ca On 2010-12-16, at 20:31, Steve Feldman wrote: Please read the proposal (it's short!) and comment. I think this is great. +1 David Barak ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] modest proposal for moderation
Perhaps we could invert the modest propsal thusly: If the topic of discussion has been or is likely to be a presentation topic, then it is known to be on-topic for the mailing list. Other topics may or may not, at mlc discretion, etc. (I#39;m also reasonably happy with the way things are now, and am not motivated to change them drastically) -David Barak Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: On Jun 9, 2009, at 8:58 PM, Randy Bush wrote: Note: topic in the presentation room, not topic at the hotel bar ;-) ... which clearly means that you've missed where the real discussions happen. and only want to discuss what has already been discussed The original post also said and is unlikely to be a topic in the NANOG conference, which sounds like it would include anything that is likely to be discussed. Back to the original question: Fair attempt, but I think it falls short. It would be closer to say could possibly be a topic in the conference. But even that falls short, IMHO. There are subjects which are on topic useful for the mailing list which will never be presented. Besides, I think we have a fine system now. The MLC is doing an outstanding job. Do you not agree? (Randy, don't bother answering, I wasn't asking you. We all know your position - same as spammers, JHD. I don't like it when they say it either.) -- 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 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] level of fail [was: The Peering BOF and the Fallout?]
--- On Tue, 2/26/08, vijay gill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Removing the BOF and or turning it into some sort of overtly structured environment would make it boring and not as useful, which is bad. then i suggest you not do it! I am very against any such action. I wish to state for the record that I do NOT want oversight of the bof, the very spontaneity is what brings out the true value for me This is the most violent agreement I've ever seen. 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] Program: proposed late start for NANOG SJC
hat type=none I think it's an excellent idea. 9AM = bleary-eyed. /hat David Barak Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise: http://www.listentothefranchise.com Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. Make Yahoo! your homepage. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: AUP modification - full first and last names
--- Cat Okita [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, David Barak wrote: I don't think the corner cases (people who get stalked, people who only have one name, etc) invalidate the general value of requiring that postings to a list ostensibly devoted to professional matters be associated with one's name. I think the corner cases (and preserving privacy and separation) are decidedly important - but it's easy to claim they're irrelevant if you don't happen to be one of them... Corner cases are the ones which should be solved by working out case-by-case solutions. If the volume of corner cases becomes high, then a different overall approach would need to be adopted. Since I have been involved with the MLC, I have only seen one specific case where there was not a workable solution which enabled an individual to continue posting. One case in multiple years isn't bad. Of course, I could be missing something... To : David Barak [EMAIL PROTECTED] Perhaps I'm missing something here ; Is that your professional email address? *grin* That's what I am describing: attach a real name to a handle (much the way Etaoin Shrdlu did). David Barak Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise: http://www.listentothefranchise.com Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/
