Re: [Nanog-futures] Transition update
joel jaeggli wrote: Um insofar as I'm aware Andy Rosenzweig is still the Marit member on the SC, I generally assume that we he states his opinion or merit's position that he is doing so in his capacity as merit's representative on the SC. That's my point. Merit has numerous people working on NANOG, but as far as I know they don't have staff 100% dedicated to NANOG (1). As a result, if NANOG separates from Merit, they'll have to reorganize their staff across the remaining Merit activities, likely leading to a few layoffs. Therefore, in the interest of not laying people off, Merit won't want to let NANOG go independent. Hence, the skin in the game, and a strong reason they won't speak objectively about NANOG's separation. pt [1] Betty Burke has said on multiple occasions that Merit doesn't want NANOG to occur in late June, as it conflicts with Merit's year-end. If the Merit staff assigned to NANOG were 100% dedicated to NANOG, this conflict wouldn't exist. ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
[Nanog-futures] Can we stop the Intercage discussion mess now?
Hundreds of messages, each to roughly 10,000 subscribers, when the network has but a few upstreams. It's been old for days, can we please find a way to intervene and bring this to a stop? 9,800 of the subscribers shouldn't all have to filter it out. I for one don't want my NANOG conference fees going towards the resources necessary to sustain this crazy discussion. pt ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Bhutan discovers the NANOG Problem...
Alan Clegg wrote: I understand why it's annoying... and it is disrespectful to the speaker. Nothing like being the guy standing up there and 1/2 of the audience not paying attention. I'd rather they not show up at all. But there's nothing like being the guy (or gal) walking up to present, and seeing 2/3 of the audience leaving. I usually sit in row 2. I don't want to have to focus on the presenter through 20 rows of chatter. That said, I often use my laptop to view the presentation PDF, so I can stare/scroll/browse in a way that helps _me_ learn. Good luck yanking my connection; I'll just vote with my wallet, and your registration fees will go up. pt ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Bhutan discovers the NANOG Problem...
Stephen Wilcox wrote: Having said that, providing its just the main plenary then sure give it a go - why not try a 1/2 day in the next nanog and then collect the feedback after to see how it went. Suggestion: if you're serious about considering this, announce your intentions before registration opens up. Or offer refunds. pt ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] default routes question or any way to do the rebundant
Martin Hannigan wrote: And the MLC didn't bother responding to either (until this). And probably won't respond further. Of course, my colleagues can say what they want, but I don't see any reason why someone can't ask for clue help. We're all busy individuals, trying to earn that paycheck whilst providing enough value to our employers to keep the stock price up (or whatever). Most of the operators on the list are at places with a help desk, NOC, or both; I'd suspect the rest of the operators have aspirations to be part of the former group. If a question isn't something we'd pick up our INOC-DBA phone to phone a friend, and would be something that would and should come into our respective help desk/NOC, shouldn't it go there? Or maybe the SC/PC has it all wrong, and the answer to improving meeting attendance is to attract that other crowd of network operators: home network operators. Last I heard, there were ~9,000 subscribers to this list. Is it truly prudent of the list to be tech support for all the world? All I'm asking for, and all I'm trying to generate thoughtful discussion about, is boundaries. pt ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] default routes question or any way to do the rebundant
Rich Kulawiec wrote: But I'd like to suggest that whatever that boundary is, we're nowhere near it. The list is not awash in an endless stream of elementary questions, nor is there any sign that it's going to be. Think definition of scope as the boundary, not rate of perceived off-topic messages as the boundary - we've had messages that were far better served by user-oriented (rather than operator-oriented) resources. And we have collectively expended more human effort discussing this than was expended in providing the responses. That's not the point: the point is to define NANOG, something that too many people have brought up, and too many others have shot down. I'm trying to get _some_ definition to it, because I think it's worthwhile. But if it's going to dissolve to a scenario where I get flamed for trying to discuss something (again), I can always go hide under a rock for a while (that's the shut up portion of RS's instructions to me). pt ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] default routes question or any way to do the rebundant
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It seems to me that this person commits only two crimes. First, English is not their native language, which means that people have to stop and think a bit in order to understand the question. And secondly, this person does not use the status-symbol brand of router that many chest-thumpers on the list use. Therefore this person is an OUTSIDER who must be chased away to preserve the integrity of the tribe. If you can exaggerate (must be chased away to preserve the integrity of the tribe isn't what I'm after, rather moving these two particular questions to another forum), I can extrapolate: MTU on DSL plus two default gateways strongly suggests (to me) home user and not network operator. Not to recommend a site where you have to pay (at least initially), but there are constant (perhaps three per day) postings on Experts Exchange (http://www.experts-exchange.com) on how do I hook my widgets-of-all-flavors to two cable modems for [more speed|redundancy] etc., including how to host servers behind said widget. There are existing resources out there that solve this person's problems, and solve them well. NANOG already has boundaries (spam filtering at the mail server level sounds like an obvious one, but other security topics might be another that's referred to more topical lists/sites), and I think 9,000 list members don't come here to do home user tech support, they come for other reasons. pt ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] default routes question or any way to do the rebundant
David Barak wrote: --- On Fri, 3/21/08, Martin Hannigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And the MLC didn't bother responding to either (until this). And probably won't respond further. Of course, my colleagues can say what they want, but I don't see any reason why someone can't ask for clue help. Exactly. We were all n00bs once, and we all benefited from folks willingness to do things that aren't their job to help us learn. As an MLC member, I read the post and consciously decided not to consider it a problem. I think that gently answering questions and then pointing folks to more relevant places is a good approach. We were all n00bs once, but many of you (I consider myself late to the game) were new at this back when the conferences had 100 attendees, and the list probably wasn't a whole lot larger than that. Groupstudy.com, Experts Exchange, vBulletin, none of that existed. Now, the list is 9,000 recipients, and a lot of other topical forums and tools exist. Some folks (I'm one, you're apparently one) say it's OK to redirect folks elsewhere, others say it's not. Can we settle/vote/discuss this for once? pt ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] default routes question or any way to do the rebundant
Donald Stahl wrote: The original question was whether basic networking questions not relevant to large network operators were on topic for NANOG. Specifically whether basic questions about MTU on a home DSL connection, or how to add multiple default routes to FreeBSD (both by the same person in separate posts) are sensible topics of conversation for the NANOG list. Tweak that a bit: I'd say we're discussing whether networking questions on the level of a network operator's customers are on-topic for NANOG. pt ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Countdown Timer (Was Re: The Peering BOF and the Fallout?)
William Norton wrote: 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. Not only professional, but if you run the wire around your body and have the beltpack end up in front, you minimize the chance of dropped signal. Always seems like the RF 'bzzzt' comes through louder than the speaker, right? 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?
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] Objection: RE: [admin] Re: EU Official: IP Is Personal
Philip Smith wrote: NANOG-futures is for discussing ways we can improve NANOG the community, NANOG the mailing list, NANOG whatever-else we want to make it. It's not really a place for whining about who did what or didn't etc - people tend to kill thread once that starts. Step 1: redirect this particular thread where it belongs, if it belongs somewhere else. So, for example, if you or anyone else feels they make the commitment to contribute time and energy to make the Mailing List Committee work even better than it is currently working, please feel free to volunteer the next time a call for volunteers comes around. :-) Whoa. It's not the North American Internet's prerogative to dictate European Internet's policies, therefore I don't see how or why we should so drastically wall off non-NA policy as discussion. Therefore, Michael's objection has (in my opinion) serious merit for discussion/debate. Since there's no 'Europe bit' in IPvx, is there really no room for discussing the impact of European policy on global Internet operations? And seriously, can we stop with the if you don't like it, you must volunteer to serve on it to effect your desired changes mantra? There's an apparent disconnect with the AUP and this (particular) thread. Is it really appropriate to quash the discussion so quickly? Is it time to restrict the MLC, PC, and SC to individuals who either reside in North America or participate in $dayjob that primarily or only exists in North America? Or can we allow this discussion about policy? For the record, I don't care if that particular thread dies; it'd strayed off-topic. However, I think the policy interpretation is too strict and warrants clarification. pt ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: AUP modification
Randy Bush wrote: 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. For those of us who want to learn about 24x7 Support Strategies but don't care to read about veggie oil and biodiesel as a staffing strategy, having folk adjust the subject of a tangential thread is a feature. OK?
