Re: [Nanog-futures] Media at NANOG conferences
Steve Meuse said the following on 18/7/08 06:47: Philip Smith expunged ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): We'd like to hear the community's opinion on this. We've drafted a Media Policy based on what other events like ours do; see the attachment below... Any opinions? Constructive suggestions? I'm not very comfortable having the media at the meeting. There is a certain amount of free trade of information and ideas that flows and having the media may stifle that. Fair point. However, we have nothing prohibiting the media from attending at the moment; we just expect them to pay full fare like everyone else. At San Jose, at one of the after parties, I was in a conversation with another engineer when someone joined our conversation and didn't identify herself immediately. After about 15-20 minutes she handed me a card, she was a reporter for one of the local San Jose papers. I started to freak out a little...what have I said out loud over the past 15 minutes!. I know the feeling...! :-( philip -- ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Bhutan discovers the NANOG Problem...
Robert Seastrom said the following on 7/7/08 05:16: It seems that Bhutan is having trouble with web surfing and gaming during their sessions: http://uk.reuters.com/article/technologyNewsMolt/idUKB12933220080630 It is a thought though... Should we try a NANOG without network or power provision in the main plenary room? People would have to listen to the presenter with 100% attention then. Would this make the programme better? Would there be more QA? Would there be more discussion in panel sessions? Would it make NANOG better overall? Some meetings I go to now have enforced laptop bans so that the topics under discussion have less chance of distracted participants. (I still remember some of the feedback from the NANOG IPv6 hour back in February - even having no IPv4 connectivity for 60 minutes was equivalent to the end of the world for some people. Left me wondering what the actual plenary session was for.) Having just come back from JANOG, while JANOG apparently had wireless for the first time ever, there was no power in the room. Longlife batteries needed. I noticed the majority of the audience was actually sitting and listening to the presentations, and there was good QA after most of them. philip -- ___ 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?
Hi Patrick, Patrick W. Gilmore said the following on 25/2/08 11:00: 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. Yes, there was a brief discussion at the SC meeting on Wednesday - the PC Chair participates on the SC as an ex-officio member. (The minutes have just been passed on to Merit for publication - they will be at http://www.nanog.org/sc.minutes08.html, findable from the NANOG website home page under General Info - Steering Committee.) We noted that complaints had been received about a particular item in the Peering BoF, and agreed that the PC should discuss closer review of the BoF content with the BoF organisers. We also discussed in general about BoFs that have become a fixture in the programme as opposed to being a once or twice occurrence (which is the more normal understanding of BoFs, I'd say). Both the Peering and Security BoFs have been a long term and an incredibly valuable part of NANOG for many years, so we felt that giving them the true recognition they deserved as an integral part of the programme would be something worth exploring moving forwards. And of course, being part of the programme would mean following the same processes for content review as the rest of the NANOG programme. I should mention, as an FYI, that both Peering and Security BoFs have been integral part of APRICOT for some time. Apart from the plenary session, APRICOT has parallel tracks (we call them streams). The organisers of both tracks taking the lead in organising their content in conjunction with the APRICOT PC. So formalising the long running BoFs at NANOG in a similar way should really not be seen as a backward step. Either way, gossiping on a mailing list is not the right way. Certainly the rumour mill has been busy... SC / PC members, please step up, so we can all go back to arguing over leaking deaggs. :) Hopefully I've helped clarify. Now let's go back to talking about leaking prefixes... :-) philip SC Chair -- ___ 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?
Hi Richard, Richard A Steenbergen said the following on 25/2/08 08:21: Making a special exemption for Bill Norton (a member of the SC, which elects the PC) could easily give the impression of undue favoritism to the outside world, and defeat all of the work that has been put into providing openness and transparency into the process. Just a small comment. Bill's service to the community as an SC member completed in October last year. philip -- ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
