Re: [Nanog-futures] Admission for Committee Members
On 8/31/11 10:30 AM, David Temkin wrote: The various committees put in many tireless hours of effort to bring a content rich, well attended, well sponsored meeting to our attendees. In return they generally get a free lunch and a brief thank you. I propose that any committee member who attends six or more committee meetings between NANOG meetings is entitled to a free registration for the upcoming meeting. Attendance would be gauged by the chair of the committee and this would only be available as a benefit to sanctioned committees. My (outside looking in) concern is that some of the said meetings would potentially occur after the desired registration window. Assuming that's the case, perhaps it's done as [attend enough meetings for NANOGX] => [get reward at NANOGX+1]. As a past PCer, I was happy doing it at no reward, but work was willing to send me to 2/year at the time. pt ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
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
Re: [Nanog-futures] Transition update
Jay Hennigan wrote: > On 6/2/10 1:30 PM, Daniel Golding wrote: > >> Jay, you keep talking about the Merit members of the SC and PC, for >> example. They can't "agree" to a proposal like this, even if they want >> to - they are in place as Merit employees. > > Sure they can. If Merit is aware that its mission differs from that of > NANOG, as Merit employees they might very well agree that the time has > come to part ways. "This NANOG thing is no longer consistent with > Merit's goals, and they want to leave anyway, it's in everyone's best > interest to cut them loose." Not all takeovers are hostile. I disagree. Merit has skin in the game, as a loss of NANOG means a loss of revenue that pays staff salaries. If Merit employees vote to cut NANOG loose, they're likely signing termination papers for several people. $300-400k flows from NANOG revenue to Merit staff salaries per year. pt ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Email header change?
Randy Bush wrote: >> is now appearing to come from nanaog-bounces+@nanog.org. > > this *greatly* aids debugging bounces from bad subscribers I'm sure it does. But would it really be too much to ask for a little change management, i.e. to have these sorts of changes announced ahead of time? Gee, I dunno, like we're expected to do as NANOs (or should I say xNOs)? pt ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Can we stop the Intercage discussion mess now?
Gadi Evron wrote: > On Thu, 25 Sep 2008, kris foster wrote: >> Agreed as well > > Agreed. If someone has a relevant update on the mess, such as new > transit providers--okay. But the meta-discussion has become unproductive. Why would new transit providers even matter? End the discussion, please. There's no sense blasting to 10,000 recipients when there's news about one transit provider - all of us can make our own decisions with our own networks. pt ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://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] Media at NANOG conferences
Sean Figgins wrote: > I would suggest replacing the term "they will receive a special badge > with "MEDIA" written in large letters which they should please wear when > in circumstances where their role is not otherwise obviously known," > with something like "they will receive a special badge with "MEDIA" > written in large letters which they MUST wear while covering the > conference." I concur. You want free access? It has a "price" to it. pt ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Rudeness because presenters suck.
Alan Clegg wrote:
> Public speaking is a class that is pretty expensive, and lots of
> technical people don't get the opportunity to become professionally
> trained speakers because that's not what their job is and their
> employers would rather them be productive in the technical aspects of
> their job.
Last I checked, the PC didn't require a course in public speaking or
other "professional training".
> Disrespect for a speaker that you feel is irrelevant, boring and un-fun
> just shows that you are a rude and elitist audience.
There are presenters who don't take the time to assess their audience,
_prepare_ their presentation, and rehearse their presentation. Why
should we pay upwards of $20/hour to see a presentation that wasn't
prepared? Note that the PC has to make selections based on abstracts
and rough slides, so they don't know how well the person will prepare.
> AlanC {Dale Carnegie trained speaker, presenter, relevant, interesting
> and fun guy that had thought about presenting at NANOG, but won't now}
Maybe we should all throw down our CCNA numbers or something.
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] 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] MLC post-mortem]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> I'll say it You, M Dillon, are out of touch with what NANOG is. >> NANOG is not a mailinglist software development >> company/group, nor should it be developing it's own custom >> one-off of off-the-shelf products. > > Which is why we use Mailman to run our mailing lists and which is why > I suggested that we should pick some existing blog software to run > our blog/list combo. However, the fact is that if we want to solve the > scaling problems of 10,000 plus list members by moving to blogging > software, we also have to find a way to maintain the email delivery > of the lists. That is the place where somebody needs to do some > minor development work because, unfortunately, there isn't a nice > off-the-shelf package with a GUI control panel and a checkbox for > this function. Then go start NANblog, and see if the crowd follows. Until then, the rest of us realize NANOG is a list (OK, several) and a conference. 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
[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
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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Funny thing is that if you read the first sentence in section 3 (Mission) > of the NANOG charter, it seems to include that goal. > >The purpose of NANOG is to provide forums in the North >American region for education and the sharing of knowledge >for the Internet operations community. Since when does "the sharing of knowledge for the Internet operations community" extend to "home user questions"? 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
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
James R. Cutler wrote: > If NANOG is to continue as a robust and vital organization, we cannot > afford to be nasty to newcomers. > > If NANOG is to die, we can continue arbitrary nastiness and restrictions > on simple asking of questions. > > It is always better to give a guided tour to another location than to > shout, "You don't belong here!" For the sake of discussion, let's come up with some semblance of boundaries so we know whether we'll get scolded for leading a guided tour or not. If someone's rude, we can handle that separately. 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] default routes question or any way to do the rebundant
Robert E. Seastrom wrote: > By charter nothing is off-topic on -futures, but that doesn't mean the > current content is not a ridiculous waste of time. BS. This is relevant discussion - there are numerous other fora out there, and there's constant discussion about what NANOG's borders should be. I for one was told to screw off when I tried to discuss whether European packets were on topic, and I'm getting tired of people not being willing to define what NANOG is and isn't. For the record, it's my opinion that configuration guidance for a single router that's likely not running a single dynamic routing protocol is fodder for other resources. 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?
AUP modification
Proposal: N. Postings to the list shall have a subject line that is a concise representation of the topic being referenced. 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. Please discuss and blast full of holes as desired. The MLC is apparently offended that I asked them to focus their efforts without providing new proposals, so here's a proposal. I for one would like the data (whether signal or noise) to be more readily identifiable when reading, so I figure it's time we do something about that. pt
Re: AUP modification - full first and last names
Alex Pilosov wrote: MLC suggests to change the AUP to: I'd like community feedback on this. What will this do to improve signal-to-noise ratio on the list? Can we please focus on guidelines that improve SnR? pt
Re: Proposed AUP Enforcement policy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Feel free to provide feedback, and/or show up at community BOF tomorrow! 1. Any member of the MLC MAY warn any subscriber regarding any violation of the AUP. Such email MUST detail which AUP rule is being violated, and MUST be sent directly to subscriber, with a copy to [EMAIL PROTECTED] c. After discussion, MLC chair SHOULD call a vote to see if warning should be withdrawn. If majority agrees, warning will be withdrawn and subscriber will be notified accordingly. Warnings may not be further appealed to the Steering Committee. Doesn't a withdrawn warning undermine the authority of the MLC? Couldn't the MLC vote on the warning before sent to the subscriber? pt
