Re: [Nanog-futures] Possible word error in section 18.1 Liability

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

On Sep 20, 2012, at 00:19 , Jack Hamm  wrote:

> I'm not a lawyer, but in section 18.1:
> 
> (a) beach of the director’s or officer’s duty of loyalty to NANOG;
> 
> I believe that is meant to say "(a) breach of the"

If it were a beach, I may run again

=)

-- 
TTFN,
patrick


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

Re: [Nanog-futures] NANOG Trademark and Resources transferring toNewNOG

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

On Feb 3, 2011, at 10:35 AM, laperriere.syl...@gmail.com wrote:

> We will keep using NewNOG as a legal entity to do the contracting, so that 
> name will not be really prominent.  Changing legal names is expensive and our 
>  mission is to be frugal. 
> Nanog remains the brand known to the community for communications, for 
> members, for lists and for conferences. 

I don't see this as a big deal.  Remember, NANOG was never the name of a 
corporation, it was only a mailing list, domain, conference, etc.

Merit ran NANOG without changing their name.  NewNOG, Inc. will do the same, 
and the "NewNOG" name will likely be even less visible than the name "Merit" 
has been in the past (or even will be in the future!).

-- 
TTFN,
patrick


> -Original Message-
> From: Daniel Golding 
> Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 09:36:04 
> To: Brian Johnson
> Cc: nanog-futures@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: [Nanog-futures] NANOG Trademark and Resources transferring to
>   NewNOG
> 
> I can't speak for the board, but as I understand it, it will probably
> be DBA (doing business as). The expense of going back and redoing all
> the work is just too much. Hopefully, we'll only see NewNOG used on
> legal documents from now on
> 
> Dan
> 
> On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Brian Johnson  wrote:
>> Will there be a move to change the name of NewNOG to NANOG now that the IP 
>> has been transferred, or will this be more like a DBA situation?
>> 
>>  - Brian J.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Steven Feldman [mailto:feld...@newnog.org]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 10:12 AM
>>> To: nanog-futures@nanog.org
>>> Subject: [Nanog-futures] NANOG Trademark and Resources transferring to
>>> NewNOG
>>> 
>>> Yesterday, NewNOG and Merit Network signed an agreement to transfer
>>> the NANOG trademark and related resources to NewNOG, effective Monday,
>>> Feb. 7.  This includes the nanog.org domain, the NANOG logo, and the
>>> contents and archives of the NANOG mailing lists and web site.
>>> 
>>> NewNOG and Merit are working on a transition plan to migrate the
>>> mailing list and web infrastructure by the end of March with minimal
>>> downtime.
>>> 
>>> For more information, see our joint press release:
>>> 
>>> http://www.merit.edu/news/newsarchive/article.php?article=20110201_nan
>>> og
>>> 
>>> Steve, for the NewNOG board
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Nanog-futures mailing list
>>> Nanog-futures@nanog.org
>>> https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
>> 
>> ___
>> Nanog-futures mailing list
>> Nanog-futures@nanog.org
>> https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
>> 
> 
> ___
> Nanog-futures mailing list
> Nanog-futures@nanog.org
> https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
> ___
> Nanog-futures mailing list
> Nanog-futures@nanog.org
> https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
> 


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

Re: [Nanog-futures] NewNOG has an Executive Director

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

On Jan 16, 2011, at 1:57 PM, Daniel Golding wrote:

> Congrats to Betty! i think NANOG really prospered as a Merit program with 
> Betty as program manager. 
> 
> BTW...what does "interim" mean in this context? 

The job which was posted posted (publicly, in multiple places, including this 
list) was for an 18 month interim position.  The Board did not feel we were 
mature enough to make a permanent decision, but we felt we needed stability 
through the transition period.  The 18 month interim position was the 
compromise we settled upon.

Every candidate was told the interim ED would be considered for the permanent 
position at the end, and would likely have the "inside track" on the job - 
assuming they performed their duties well.  However, we were very clear the 
position was interim, and no guarantee was made of employment past the first 18 
months even if they did do well.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick


> On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 12:46 AM, Steven Feldman  wrote:
> I am pleased to announce that the NewNOG board has chosen Betty Burke
> to serve as our Interim Executive Director.
> 
> The board's search committee conducted formal interviews with six
> finalists chosen from a field of sixteen applicants.  Many of the
> applicants were well qualified for the position, but ultimately the
> full board unanimously decided that Betty is the best fit, given both
> her qualifications and history with the community.
> 
> As Interim Executive Director, Betty will be responsible for managing
> the day-to-day operations of NewNOG as we navigate the transition into
> a self-sufficient organization, as well as working with the various
> committees on finance, fundraising, marketing, and other areas.
> 
> Please join me in welcoming Betty to her new role in the NewNOG community.
> 
> For the NewNOG board,
> Steve Feldman, chair
> 
> ___
> Nanog-futures mailing list
> Nanog-futures@nanog.org
> https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
> 
> ___
> Nanog-futures mailing list
> Nanog-futures@nanog.org
> https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures


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

[Nanog-futures] NewNOG is recruiting for an Executive Director

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

The Board of Directors of NewNOG would like to hire a full time Executive 
Director.

NewNOG is a non-profit organization created by the Internet community in North 
America to handle the mailing list, conferences and other activities presently 
called NANOG.

The job is an 18 month contract interim position to help shepherd the new 
organization through the initial phase of transitioning responsibilities from 
Merit, who currently manages the NANOG activities, to NewNOG. After the initial 
term, a permanent ED will be selected.  An interim ED who discharges their 
duties well will be considered a strong candidate for the permanent position.

The ideal candidate has fund raising experience, as well as experience running 
conferences with at least many hundreds of attendees.  Familiarity with the 
NANOG community is a definite plus. More information is available in the job 
description which can be found at .

Please send CVs to bo...@newnog.org.

Thank you.

Board of Directors for NewNOG

• Steve Feldman (chair)
• Patrick Gilmore
• Sylvie LaPerriere (secretary)
• Joe Provo (vice-chair)
• Rob Seastrom
• Duane Wessels (treasurer)


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

Re: [Nanog-futures] Moving Forward - What kind of NANOG do we want?

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

On Jul 2, 2010, at 10:59 AM, Sean Figgins wrote:
> Andy Davidson wrote:
> 
>> A good quality meeting 'Fringe' is a defining characteristic of a mature 
>> community.  Let it happen.  The fringe is the test-bed for stuff too crazy 
>> or early for the formal agenda.  Promote this ad-hoc stuff on the nanog 
>> site.  A good fringe will encourage more long-term attendees and attendee 
>> loyalty ( == revenue) without the program co-ordinators having to do more 
>> work.
> 
> I think that you need to be careful of advertising or promoting this. 
> While it may be expected and accepted that these occur at the meeting, 
> when trying to pitch to your company to send you to a technical 
> conference, it becomes harder to get them to cough up the money when 
> they see it as a large party.  NANOG used to be pretty cheap, but from 
> the recent thread, I see that is is now $600 to attend, plus whatever 
> travel costs.  At a time where many companies are cutting things like 
> reimbursement (or providing) cell phone and home internet access for 
> their technical staff, sending staff to a party seems out of line.

I am intentionally staying out of the back & forth so that others do not think 
I am trying to influence things.  However, I wanted to add an objective fact 
here since no one else seems to have mentioned it.

The $600 is only the walk-up fee.  NANOG is less if you register earlier, as 
little as $450.

As for whether that is expensive or not, I encourage readers to research other 
conferences and compare for themselves.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick


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

[Nanog-futures] Webcasting more than the plenary [was: NANOG Transition Plan track will be webcast]

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

On Jun 14, 2010, at 6:12 PM, Joe Provo wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 09:39:51AM -0700, Steve Feldman wrote:
>> On Jun 14, 2010, at 9:16 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> 
 For those interested, the "NANOG Transition Plan" session, scheduled
 for 4:30-6:00pm Monday, will be webcast.
>>> 
>>> ahem.  i presume this will not interfere with the webcasting of the
>>> security session.
>> 
>> The security session (as with most BOFs/tracks) are not typically
>> webcast or recorded, in order not not discourage candid conversation.
>> It's been that way as long as I can remember.
> 
> I believe what was an economic concern (back when getting more cameras
> was such a one) originally kept non-plenary off camera.  These days, 
> talk submitters (I believe) have a tickbox to select if/if not, and 
> both peering and security moderators tend to tick "not".  
> 
> What I'd love to see would be an icon or column on the agenda showing
> per-talk if it is intended to be streamed (ie, the submitter's selection
> be propagated through to the community) such that remote participants 
> can know in advamce if this or that item will be available to them.

+1

(I don't normally do  posts, but I figured it was important for the PC to 
know there was support for this idea.)

-- 
TTFN,
patrick


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

[Nanog-futures] Update on NANOG Marketing Working Group

[Patrick W . Gilmore]

Everyone,

The NANOG Marketing Working Group has been working hard to help NANOG  
find new profitable revenue to ensure the meetings keep getting better  
without raising prices.  The group's most active members are:

Betty Burke (Merit, SC)
Carol Wadsworth (Merit)
Greg Dendy
Dave Tempkin
Martin Levy
Martin Hannigan
Sylvie Laperriere
Steve Feldman (SC)
Patrick Gilmore (Chair, SC)

The group is making some progress on finding new, innovative  
sponsorship opportunities for the NANOG meeting which we believe will  
not interfere with the spirit of the meeting.

These include:

* Vendor Collaboration Suite
Where vendors can allow hands-on experience with their equipment, one- 
to-one (or few), probably by appointment.  This is our highest value  
sponsorship opportunity as it grants the vendor exclusive access to  
the NANOG attendees.
$15,000/day

* Lanyards
A sponsor can have their name interleaved with the NANOG logo on the  
name badge lanyards.
$4,000

* Water Bottles
Get your logo on water bottles people will carry around during the  
conference!
$ TBD

* Break Slides
Sponsor name & logo will be put up on the projectors during the break.
Included in break sponsorship
$ TBD

* Party Promotion
Sponsor's social activity is put onto the official NANOG agenda,  
announced at the mic at the end of the day it is occurring, and  
sponsor even has the option of providing tickets which will be handed  
out with NANOG collateral pack during check-in.
$2,000

And more!

We encourage feedback from the community on both our ideas and the  
implementation thereof.  And, of course, anyone who wants to help out  
is encouraged to join the Marketing WG.  We are in especially  
desperate need of a competent chairperson. :)

-- 
TTFN,
patrick


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

Re: [Nanog-futures] modest proposal for moderation

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

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] Call for volunteers: NANOG Marketing Working Group

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

Everyone,

The NANOG Marketing Working Group (MWG) is looking for a few good  
volunteers!

The MWG was created to investigate ways to bring in more sponsor  
support without changing the spirit of the NANOG meeting.  We are  
looking for additional sponsorship opportunities, that will bring  
value to the companies donating their money, time and equipment in  
support of the meeting and also benefits attendees.

This is important work, as it will help the overall meeting budget do  
more for attendees, keep registration fees lower and offset other  
meeting costs.

Some members of the Program and Steering Committees have agreed to  
volunteer to work on this project. They are Tom Daly, Steve Feldman,  
Patrick Gilmore, and Sylvie Laperriere.  Betty Burke and Carol  
Wadsworth from Merit are also participating.

We would like to ask for some help and input from the community.  The  
time commitment for this work is approximately 2 hours per week for 8  
weeks prior to any given meeting and likely 4-6 hours in the week  
prior to the meeting.  (Total commitment would be 20-22 hours in a 2- 
month span leading up to a meeting.)  Please only apply if you can  
provide the necessary time for this important ongoing, volunteer  
activity.

If you are interested is serving on NANOG's MWG, please e-mail a short  
(one paragraph) explanation of why you think you can best help out to: 
nanog-market...@nanog.org 
.  The existing working group will select up to four additional members.

Thank you.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick


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

Re: [Nanog-futures] [NANOG-announce] Election reminder - charter amendments

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

[Sorry for top post, the Jesus-Phone still needs some work.]

If any one cares, I vote for #1.

--  
TTFN,
patrick

iPhone 3-J
(That's 3-Jezuz for the uninitiated.)

On Oct 3, 2008, at 17:45, Steve Feldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Oct 2, 2008, at 3:16 PM, Steve Gibbard wrote:
>
>> ...  I notice that
>> the last clean-up point in C turns the power the membership has
>> currently
>> to recommend changes to the charter into the power to actually
>> change the
>> charter.  My recollection is that the "recommended" wording is there
>> because having ultimate authority over the charter was important to
>> Merit,
>> who might agree to change it in response to recommendations.  Has  
>> that
>> changed?
>
> I wrote the draft amendment text, so I can comment on this.
>
> I wasn't aware of the reasoning behind the original word choice, and I
> don't believe that it's clear from context, so I assumed it was
> unintentional.
>
> Looking over the charter, I don't see that Merit's *actual* oversight
> role is explicitly stated anywhere.  A casual reader of the charter
> (if there is such a thing) would assume that NANOG is pretty much an
> ordinary membership organization.  Perhaps that should be remedied?
> If so, we'd need another amendment, since that goes beyond minor
> cleanup.
>
> If this is an issue, I can think of a few ways forward:
>
> 1. Adopt the amendment text as proposed, and continue the implicit
> understanding with Merit.
>
> 2. Adopt the amendment text as proposed, also add text (maybe in
> section 1 or 4) explicitly stating Merit's oversight role.
>
> 3. Same as #2, and add something giving Merit veto power over
> amendments.
>
> 4. Keep the current "recommend" (remove the item from the amendment),
> maintaining status quo.
>
> 5. Same as #4, but add explicit wording about Merit's role.
>
> Comments?
>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] [NANOG-announce] Election reminder - charter amendments

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

On Oct 2, 2008, at 3:07 AM, Philip Smith wrote:

> Please take a moment to look at the current charter amendment  
> proposals
> for the October ballot at:
>
>  http://www.nanog.org/charter/
>
> If you have comments on the proposals, please post them on the
> nanog-futures list or send them to [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the next  
> few days.

First, I want the SC to know that someone read and thought about the  
changes, so they don't think their work was unnoticed or unappreciated.

Second, the only comment I have is that I believe a 2/3 super-majority  
should be required.  If I were on the SC, I might feel inhibited from  
making the "right decision" if I knew 50%+1 could get me booted.

Hrmm, I guess the end result of my post is a no-op. :)  Sorry for the  
noise.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick


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

[Nanog-futures] Fwd: [NANOG] AUTO: Kamal Mehta is on vacation (returning 05/21/2008)

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

I believe the rule says this is auto-removal of posting privs, but  
there is no MLC, so I am not sure to whom I should send this.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick


Begin forwarded message:

> From: Kamal Mehta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: May 20, 2008 12:05:38 PM EDT
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [NANOG] AUTO: Kamal Mehta is on vacation  (returning  
> 05/21/2008)
>
>
>
> I am out of the office until 05/21/2008.
>
> I am on vacation and will not have access to e-mail.  I will try to  
> reply
> to your message on my return.
>
> If you need immediate assistance, please call the IBM AOD Service  
> Center at
> 877-737-3700.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Note: This is an automated response to your message  "NANOG Digest,  
> Vol 4,
> Issue 49" sent on 5/20/08 6:00:02.
>
> This is the only notification you will receive while this person is  
> away.
> ___
> NANOG mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
>


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

Re: [Nanog-futures] Subject line Tag and footer

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

On May 5, 2008, at 10:31 PM, Gregory Hicks wrote:
> From: Joe Abley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> On 5 May 2008, at 21:47, Scott Weeks wrote:
>>
>>> I have been waiting to send this, but please reconsider the Subject
>>> line tag and the footer.  It is very bothersome.
>>
>> If given a choice, I would opt for neither. But I can't say that I am
>> especially bothered about either, either.
>
> I concur.  If given a choice, I would opt for neither the subject tag
> nor the footer - especially given the info given in each message's
> headers.  Delete the the subject tags and footers please.

I'll me-too this.

Subject line is horrible, terrible, and other ibles.  Please, please  
kill.  If you don't stop, I'll whine a lot and annoy you.

Footer is a silly waste of electrons and space in my mail archive.  I  
don't like it.  If you don't stop, I'll... ignore it.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick


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

Re: [Nanog-futures] [NANOG] in the subject line

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

On May 5, 2008, at 10:39 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:

> On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 07:20:17AM -0700, Lynda wrote:
>> It is something that mailman offers, but there was certainly no  
>> need to
>> use it. I manage mailing lists that do, and ones that don't.  
>> Personally,
>> I'm in favor of *not* doing it.
>
> I strongly concur.  Subject-line tagging is a poor practice and  
> frequently
> results in confusion when messages are sent to multiple lists or are
> forwarded.  As in this very message, for example.  The right way to do
> this (and it's already being done for NANOG lists) is with List-Id in
> the headers.
>
> Further reasons why subject-line tagging is a bad idea are here:
>
>   Subject Header Tagging Considered Harmful
>   http://www.l33tskillz.org/writing/tagging-harmful/



Is this a vote thing?  Perhaps should we just buttonhole the MailMan  
admin @ NANOG and either ply him/her with alcohol until they see the  
error of their ways, or beat them into submission?

-- 
TTFN,
patrick


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

Re: [Nanog-futures] Fwd: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Please confirm (XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)]

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

On Apr 25, 2008, at 8:31 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:

> It appears that "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" is using a challenge/response  
> system
> (see below).  This is an extremely bad idea -- so bad that I'm  
> surprised
> that NANOG personnel aren't already well aware of it.  (It's common
> knowledge among most of those working in the anti-spam field.)

You didn't read the actual e-mail below, did you?  "To confirm that  
you sent the message below, simply reply to this email message."  So I  
guess your message did not get confirmed :)

I'd call it a bad joke, but not a barrier to interaction with the  
admins.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick


> See, for example:
>
>   Challenge-Response Anti-Spam Systems Considered Harmful
>   http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Mail/challenge-response.html
>
> Vastly superior anti-spam methods which do not result in outbound
> abuse are available, well-documented, and easily implemented.
> If NANOG needs assistance with that, I'm sure any number of us
> would be happy to help out.  But the C/R mechanism should be
> disabled immediately, before it's used to abuse third parties.
>
> ---Rsk
>
> - Forwarded message from NANOG Admins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
>
>> From: NANOG Admins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: Please confirm (X)
>> Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 22:59:37 UTC
>>
>>
>> This is an automated message.
>>
>> The message you sent (attached below) requires confirmation
>> before it can be delivered.  To confirm that you sent the
>> message below, simply reply to this email message.  You
>> do not need to modify anything in this message.  Once this is
>> done, your original email will be forwarded and no more
>> confirmations will be necessary for future messages.
>>
>>
>> --- Original Message Follows ---
>>
>> Received: from taos.firemountain.net ([207.114.3.54])
>> Received: from squonk.gsp.org (bltmd-207.114.17.169.dsl.charm.net  
>> [207.114.17.169])
>> Received: from avatar.gsp.org (avatar.gsp.org [192.168.0.11])
>> Received: from avatar.gsp.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
>> Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
>> Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 18:56:11 -0400
>> From: Rich Kulawiec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: In re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Never seen before! Gucci Prada  
>> Chanel,
>> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>>
>> (Original message truncated)
>>
>
> - End forwarded message -
>
> ___
> 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] Charter and crossposting.

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

On Mar 14, 2008, at 11:46 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:

> There's no new charter, just SOP's. But yes, it is against the AUP.
> Let me see if the authors of these valuable reports can fix that with
> a BCC.

BCC'ing the other lists is still cross-posting.

--  
TTFN,
patrick



> On 3/14/08, Simon Lyall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> I notice that the charter (both and and the new proposal)  
>> explicitly bans
>> crossposting to the list. However every week we get:
>>
>> The Cidr Report  - Crossposted to 4 others lists
>> BGP Update Report- Crossposted to 5 others lists
>> Weekly Routing Table Report  - Crossposted to 5 others lists
>>
>> Could either the policies (now and future) please be updated to  
>> either
>> allow these or could the mailing list admins please take measures  
>> to stop
>> them occuring.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Simon Lyall  |  Very Busy  |  Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz/
>> "To stay awake all night adds a day to your life" - Stilgar | eMT.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Nanog-futures mailing list
>> Nanog-futures@nanog.org
>> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
>>
>
> -- 
> Sent from Google Mail for mobile | mobile.google.com
>
> ___
> 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

[Nanog-futures] level of fail [was: The Peering BOF and the Fallout?]

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

On Feb 24, 2008, at 4:19 AM, vijay gill wrote:

> I would like the voice my support for the peering bof, it is by far  
> the most entertaining item at nanog. You cannot see this much level  
> of fail in one place, and for this reason alone, not only should it  
> continue, the hours should be expanded to cover a full day.

Would you mind expanding upon "You cannot see this much level of fail  
in one place"?  (I'm not even sure that sentence is English.)

My feeling is that you were being sarcastic, trying to imply the  
peering BoF is full of people who are failing, but it's hard to be  
certain in this communications medium.

If you do not like the Peering BoF, perhaps you could make your  
reasons more clear?  If you like the Peering BoF, sorry I have  
misinterpreted you.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick


___
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?

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

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

Re: AUP modification

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

On Jun 15, 2007, at 8:12 PM, Randy Bush wrote:


N+1. Replies to list postings that involve a change of topic shall
include a new subject line, with optional reference to the previous
topic, and shall be formatted in such a way as to appear as a new  
thread

in as many common MUAs as possible.


for those of us who use our MUA's KillAllOfSubject command, having  
folk

adjust the subject of a wandering bs thread is not a feature.


Unless, of course, we are interested in where the new thread leads,  
but would have missed it because the subject said "$FOO" when people  
were talking about "$BAR".


--
TTFN,
patrick

Re: AUP modification - full first and last names

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

On Jun 15, 2007, at 7:47 AM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

I would suggest that in the community of 10,000 email subscribers  
to the
NANOG list, there is nobody whose alias is better known than their  
real

name.


I'd have to disagree; I think there may be more people who know me as
"RS" than who know my actual first and last name.  Of course, you will
find both in my From line, but I'm not the only one who has
experienced this phenomenon; Richard Stallman and Guy Steele spring
immediately to mind.


Given that both RS & I worked with Michael, and he knows many people  
know both of us by our "aliases", I am surprised he posted that.   
Especially since mine doesn't even have anything to do with my name.   
(I had to set up "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" because so many people didn't know  
even my first name.)


I have had people - working for the same company! - who have  
commented to people in the halls about "that not-an-isp-guy".   
(Fortunately, in that instance, it was a good comment. :)


--
TTFN,
patrick