Re: [Nanog-futures] NewNOG memberships are available
the http://nanog.org/ site, done i believe at merit by brian, is a brilliant example of high function with minimal use of web trickery. i was amazed when he first modernized it. fwiw, paypal, which i used to use a lot, is not usable in many parts of the globe. not a good way to throw away a lot of potential members. randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] NewNOG memberships are available
I'm the NewNOG Treasurer. You can send a check to me at PO Box 8726, Moscow, ID 83843. thank you and i will vouch for duane's integrity, if you are wondering about sending a check to moscow. bookkeeping is being done on kremvax. randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] an alternate proposal for NewNOG's membership structure
http://www.nanog.org/meetings/attending/wavingfee/studentreg.php doesn't indicate that they need to be full time, so I guess they just have to be a college or university student. Period. Yes? why only university? wazza matter with the younger set? i have worked with some bitchin' good 15 year olds that became senior geeks over the years. randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] an alternate proposal for NewNOG ’s membership structure
i see your point. not sure how you are suggesting to deal with it. i think there is basic physics behind only expecting 200 paying members. my model is that 0 there are a dozen or so people who actually DO a lot for the organization. they'll keep working and attending as long as they do not get too disgusted. 1 there are another 20 who want gold badges but don't do squat other than generate bs and make life miserable for the folk in category 0. they will stay around hoping that winning beauty contests for gold badges will fill the sad gaping holes in their egos. 2 there are a hundred or two people who really contribute clue and take home clue. they are the core of the membership, and will stick around and try to find a low effort way to continue to contribute. 3 there are a a few hundred people who contribute noise and take home nothing of value. they attend when we're nearby and some will pay to be a member if you can find the right buttons to push. 4 there are thousands who lurk, take what clue they can, and will show up when they can. very few will pay. i worry most about 0 and 2 and seeing they are motivated to stay and contribute as they can. only stoopidity and sociopathy will burn them out and keep them from contributing, paying membership, coming to meetings, ... the folk who worry about money probably also need to mine 1 and 3, especially 3. e.g., they're why we need to hold meetings in the bay area, virginia, etc. bottom line: i do not think you should be disappointed in a model that is conservative and estimates 200 paying members. i will be happy to be wrong. randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] an alternate proposal for NewNOG ’s membership structure
Would it help to think of it this way? If you're a member, you don't have to worry about making the early registration deadline -- you always get it. or, there is no early registration discount. there is a late registration penalty. [ which is what it usually is, as late regs are more costly to process ] randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] No vote implications
Can someone clarify what the implication of a no vote on the proposed charter amendment are. Does that represent a vote of no confidence in the existing SC? that is the problem with not segmenting it, you can't tell. but i would not take it that way. there is an sc election for that. randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Memberships, Bylaws and other election matters
If the vote fails and these Bylaws are not adopted, the current initial Bylaws will remain in effect. These are very minimal, covering only a basic nonprofit corporate structure with boilerplate necessary to make the IRS happy, and pretty much everything else left to the Board's discretion. if the board acts calmly and sanely, this is not bad Since we don't have consensus on the membership issue yet, I will pledge to do what I can with my Board vote keep from moving down the path specified in the draft in ways that can't easily be undone when we do come to a consensus. this is helpful As one example, I will vote against creating any fellow members if it should come up. will sc members also make this committment? and what about lifers, the other long-term unwindable committment? randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Memberships, Bylaws and other election matters
and what about lifers, the other long-term unwindable commitment? Specifically what is your objection to offering life membership? i thought i was pretty clear, if terse. we do not have consensus over membership categories. life membership is unwindable should we decide against it. personally, i am not strongly against it, but am sceptical. it may get a cash infusion now, but what will it do to income down the road when folk don't need to renew? [0] does newnog actually need the infusion up front? are there other ways to deal with the financial problem that the attempt to create of this class of membership implies? randy -- [0] - i know some rir boards who are asking themselves about where they get income when folk have /32s and do not need to come back for more ipv6 space as frequently as they have for ipv4. ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Final bylaws proposal
If the to-be-voted-upon membership language is not appropriate for us going forward, it won't be the end of the world if we have to change it. If the proposal is voted down, it won't be the end of the world either. perhaps the bylaws should have been segmented for voting? randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Final bylaws proposal
One thing to keep clearly in mind here - the last charter was an iterative process. It took three to four years to fine tune it, between the mistakes, the unforeseen impacts, and the necessary removal of bootstrap language. USD 20 says that, by the time we can get the extra categories out of the bylaws, there will be annointed 'fellows' and other poofery that will be hard to untangle. the proposal does not start with simple. randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Final bylaws proposal
you forgot honorary troll, distinguished troll and fellow troll. I would like to know the criteria for such titles. i have no doubt at all that the membership committee can produce a wonderful set of criteria, job descriptions, obligations, ... randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Final bylaws proposal
i started to read the bylaws draft, hit the 42 flavors of membership, and decided to drop this note and do something more useful with my time. it left out gold and platinum members, 100 meeting members, extra legroom members, and dismembers. why the hell is all this crap needed? randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Final bylaws proposal
you forgot honorary troll, distinguished troll and fellow troll. my only excuse is tough night in the rack. and zita-san says redheads should get a class by themselves (sorry, ren). my comment from 9/22 that at most there should be two membership states, members and non still stands. iff there is a membership fee, i can see a student discount. randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] janog
fyi, janog in tokyo on last afternoon now. 580 attendees out of 802 registered. as there is no cost to register, over-registration is common. english web page http://www.janog.gr.jp/en/index.php?JANOG final attendance 624. plus 270/thurs 290/fri remote users watched the stream. no archive bummer, the geek tools preso was a classic! janog 27 will be 2011.01.20-21 in kanazawa, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanazawa,_Ishikawa known for great seafood and famous rice and sake. randy ___ 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?
Unless people serious intended for the organisation to have regular [1] meetings outside of North America (which I doubt) then it should retain the current general name and focus. why? we hove the world series! :) hubris is not a quality we lack. randy ___ 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?
Betty did a very good job of getting us on this path. That was as opposed to Susan who was reflexively against anything that had the foul odor of capitalist enterprise. We need to continue to professionalize as the organization evolves. Agreed. That was always one of the dimensions of the NANOG debate - commercial vs. the original academic/research roots. I also believe we err'd too far on the conservative side of commercializing NANOG. imiho, there has been slow and cautious movement from our academic non-commercial roots toward more industry focus. one reason it has been slow is because there's no reversing direction if we think we have gone too far. randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] NANOG Transition - How we got here
My issues are with how we got here. i have similar 'issues'. quite serious ones. when i find a time machine, i plan to deal with them, among many other things. randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] 2010.06.13 NANOG49 community meeting notes
Q: Randy Bush doesn't care what it's called--call it FrakMerit for all he cares. freakanomics folks says banking should be boring; paul krugman, nobel economist randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] NANOG Transition Plan track will be webcast
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. randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Membership, was Transition update
Who is going to pay to join a mailing list? if i understand the social contract and the business plan, i am happy to pay for foux-nog membership. i pay acm membership, i get some acm publications, and i then pay to go to acm meetings. nothing new here. randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Transition update
Having served my maximum 4 years on the PC, I would characterize my own experience with interaction between the respective parties SC PC and merit as congruent with that of Dan's. I would observe that over my now 13 year involvement with nanog that the community revolt that produced the SC was probably the most important step in normalizing the the various roles, raising the level of accountability, and eleminating the arbirary exercise of power. while I'm disappointed with the progress so far I've been convinced that the responsibility for the nanog activity needs ultimately to be invested in the community and my opinion on suject hasn't changed since the reform project began. Successful/unsuccessful interaction with the merit organization has always been personalty driven, I have enourmous respect for the work that carol and betty and david and sue have done, but they work in this through the forebearance of merit. aol but where the heck are pro forma financial projections for the new nanog? we were to get them with lead time to actualy study and ask questions before now. randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Transition update
On 6/8/10 3:25 PM, Jo Rhett wrote: and wrote and wrote and wrote No, I'm not on the SC. I'm just here to ridicule... +--+ | PLEASE | | DO NOT | | FEED THE | | TROLL | +--+ | | | | .\|.||/.. but, with no data from our fearless [0] leadership, what else are we to do, talk about NATO black helicopters? randy [0] - let us hope that the lack of fear is not their only attribute ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] wazza plan
I'll send out a progress update later today, and we're working on a more detailed plan/budget to publish in advance of the community meeting. thank you! randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] wazza plan
nanog/sf approaches. will our illustrious leadership be sending out at least the basics of a business plan long enough before the meeting that we have time to treat it seriously as opposed to flying foils at the so called community meeting? i would hope to see, at a minimum, three year forward fairly detailed pro forma balance sheet, income statement, and cash flow. I vote we remove these clowns and give it back to merit. we have a few weeks to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they have a business plan. after all, it's simple biz 101. if no clear and believable biz plan *before* nanog, then indeed it is bozoville and something will have to be done to clean up their mess. randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Transition FAQ
like you, i am an 'outsider' to this process, which i see as a feature not a bug. but i have a slightly different take. the transition is a process that has been going on slowly for years. this is just another step. but it is different in that it involves business, financial, rights in data, and personnel negotiations which are just not appropriate to be carried on in public. otoh, i agree that pronouncements from on high are not a good social strategy in this community. and perhaps a bit of arrogance can be detected in our peers who are moving this forward. luckily, none of the rest of us suffer from arrogance. :) now that much of this is out in the open, i presume we will be better informed. though, to be honest, despite it probably taking a lot of work on steve and crew's part to keep us informed, i am likely to hit delete a lot. i am even more overloaded than usual these daze. i figure it'll be a fun community meeting i sf. i suggest we go back to serving the alcohol first. :) randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] [NANOG-announce] The Evolution of NANOG
thanks steve. this is certainly a step forward in nanog's evolution, and one i hope and presume will be positive. hard work for you, but really it's mostly just business. we did it with arin, and that has worked out. and, despite the undoubted ton of blah blah that will come on the list(s), you know that the large core of the community supports your efforts, and some can even be called upon to help with the work. and, of course, a jillion thanks to betty, carol, sue, larry, david, et alia at merit who have provided such great support over the years and have helped hatch the egg. randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites
In theory, if Nanog was topical to its own mission, Nanog would be a must read every day. We all agree that Pascal needs only one or two changes. The problem is we each have a different set of changes. -- pascal hacker back in the '70s the problem here is that the community is diverse, and we need to honor that diversity. The arguments for censorship are to try and limit the list to useful content to all parties. Your statement about subscribing to the 20 lists which interest you and dumping them all in the same folder is actually a perfect solution (for you). You get to choose which 20 topics interest you. I get to choose a different 20, etc and so forth. We interact on 4 or 5 we have in common and all of the posts on those lists being topical to the list, is a perfect scenario. qed randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] modest proposal for moderation
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 randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Countermeasures for spam from social networks
Is this really enough of a problem to devote the MLC and Merit's energy toward solving it? if it distracts them from censoring messages from my peers and from sending nasty-grams to my peers, i think it's a great idea! randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites
clearly we have returned to a regime where folk think that censorship is the way to improve what they see as the appropriate content of the nanog list. as part of that, the mlc is now saying there is a list for that, ref. if someone would do us a favor and accumulate a list of these lists, one could subscribe to them, unsubscribe from nanog, and dump the new lists into the same inbox. i, for one, am ready. i have a delete key for messages that do not interest me. but i do not have an undelete for messages which censors do not think i should read. randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites
This problem has become a cyclical event which seems to cause a rash of finger pointing at the MLC whenever it pops up. This results in some 'action'. That action is usually like using reload as a workaround to a hardware problem instead of replacing the buggy code. The result is what we keep discussing: same stuff different day and a not so job for Kris et al. ^ (happy|good|pleasant|achievable|.*) i agree. we set them up for abuse and a choice between failure modes. they can not win. How about a filtered(proactive) -and- an unfiltered(reactive) feed? works for me, though i am not sure what you mean by reactive beyond my using the delete functions. randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] IPv6 and Home user allocations
it has been a bit of a lesson to watch this OT thread self-moderate on this non-moderated list. and this post is on topic, though has an incorrect $subject :) randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites
A policy idea that has been put forward, thoughts (especially from lurkers) ? Simon NANOG MLC Policy re individual sites == The availability and operation of specific Internet site such as websites and email services is off-topic unless: (a) The problems are caused by network reachability rather than problems at the site hosting the service. (b) The Internet site is a route-server or similar service which directly supports network routing and connectivity. fix your desk calendar. this is may 1st, not april 1st. randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites
On topic for who? Show me how to configure my router to use a dnsbl. please be seated when you read the next sentence. pause network operations is not only about routers randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites
- If there's a well-known mailing list for the subject, discussion should be redirected there. nope. i do not want to have to manage subscriptions (and get monthly mailman garbage:) from 42 mailing lists, and have to track where subject 19.43 has moved this week. do people not have mail readers with a delete subject/thread key? randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] ADMIN: Reminder on off-topic threads
Moderation has never worked well. Personal choice, killfiles, are optimal IMHO. I agree. is there another ops group, ripe, sanog, apops, afnog, ... which seems to need/want moderation? i am not aware of any other list i read that is moderated. if not, does that seem a bit strange to anyone (else)? and the moderation has not, imiho, improved the content of the mailing list. the bean counters, albeit well meaning, only know how to cut expenses. you don't make a successful company by throttling expense. it's the income that makes a company. randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Fwd: ADMIN: Reminder on off-topic threads
Let's try and take a step back, and see how low-key moderation works again? No, let's not. To steal a line from rbush, we tried that three years ago and it didn't work then. actually it did The current MLC's approach is working Just Fine; in your opinion mine differs ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Bhutan discovers the NANOG Problem...
If what you say is worthwhile and engaging, they'll listen again, what keeps the cows in the pasture is the quality of the grass not the size of the fence. randy, who has seen a bull walk through a fence without noticing it ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Subject line Tag and footer
just use .procmailrc to change your headers as you see fit changing mail headers is a dangerous path. i think of them as an audit trail. randy, another vote against gunk in subject: ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] [NANOG] Never seen before! Gucci Prada Chanel, Bally, Dsquared, Sold for less than cost.WOW
We're aware of the issue, and we'll work with Merit to fix it. Please refrain from posting similar me too-style comments on this particular thread. In the future, please note that if you have comments regarding operation of the list or something that just doesn't look right, you can contact the MLC and mailing list admins directly at: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your ongoing patience and support is, as always, very much appreciated. people are just filling the vacuum as i described. no ops isues and a sparrow falls, we all become ornithologists. randy -- ps: no sparrows were harmed in writing this message ___ 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
Randy, you are on the FreeBSD lists and you see the same where do I go to get an answer to... message that I do when comes out every month. Why not have the same thing for NANOG, but have it be on the FAQ page, or some other NANOG-hosted page if not the FAQ? i think this is a good idea. and i doubt having it also posted to the list once a month would seriously decrease the s:n. but i am not sure this is a bounded problem, and i think cluepon tries to do it, see http://nanog.cluepon.net/index.php/Main_Page I appreciate that you feel the royal we are most equipped to answer all questions about all manner of things i don't. but piss off is not an answer to much except to other old crusty sobs :) randy ___ 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
[ moved to futures ] Are you seriously going to sit there and claim that someone asking about how to set up 2 default routes on a FreeBSD box is operationally or technically relevant to the NANOG community at large? no. because, due to our diversity (which i think is a good thing), nothing is relevant to the nanog community *at large*. in this case it was a routing question about a commonly used platform. and one which is generalizable to other platforms. if this does not belong on nanog, we should all go home. I personally think NANOG has enough noise as it is. then perhaps you should be sending your spankings as private email? randy ___ 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
Michael Smith wrote: how about we all agree to politely sent the new member to http://www.nanog.org/listfaq.html when it's obvious they are asking questions that could be better answered elsewhere? i hope all my competitors treat their new customers that way. how about o if it is at all ops related, and you know the answer, answer it o and, iff you have answered it, and know of where better help in the subject area is available, politely point? as one kind soul actually did randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] load balancing and fault tolerance without load balancer
NANOG really isn't the forum for this kind of conversation. oh, why? it sure seems operational to me. randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Charter and crossposting.
Simon Lyall 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. being one of those who subscribes to most of the lists to which the cross-posting occurs, and running procmail that filters all but the first copy to arrive, i really appreciate the cross-posting as opposed to individual messages. could someone please explain what the ban on cross-posting is meant to accomplish? i am sure it is a good thing, i just don't remember why. perhaps it's a lack of coffee. otoh, making exceptions is one of the reasons we have humans on the mlc as opposed to automata. randy ___ 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?
Chris Malayter wrote: Greetings All, What's the deal with the Peering BOF for NY? I've heard rumors running wild that we're not going to have one, we're going to have one but Bill isn't going to run it, to we're moving to a peering track and a track bases system. I would like to know what's the deal and would like to throw my support behind Bill for the 17 BOF's that he's done so far. I think that kicking him out after all this time for a misplaced joke seems to be a bit over the top. If nothing else, I would imagine that the numbers continuing to grow over time should show that the interest has not been lost, and that the people like the format and the effort that Bill puts into it. If the PC is going to axe the BOF, I would like some transparency and explantion to the rest of us as to the rationelle so we can have it in the public forum for debate. thanks mr murdoch. rumors of the bof's or bill's death are probably a bit exaggerated. randy ___ 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?
http://xkcd.com/386/ ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] [admin] Re: EU Official: IP Is Personal
Martin Hannigan wrote: Folks, we'd like to ask that this thread die a quick and painful death. It's gone off topic and it seems to have run whatever short course that it tried. While what Europe does is interesting to us as network operators, this is European policy and off topic for NANOG. right! none of our packets go over there and vice versa. randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] [admin] Re: EU Official: IP Is Personal
Martin Hannigan wrote: [Randy removed, he's in my killfile] rofl! make my day. By all means, volunteer to serve on the MLC if you prefer to drive from the front. you take someone disagreeing with you so well, marty. hope you don't have a heart attack. randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Submitted presentation request...
In any event, I don't know how to directly contact the the NANOG PC folks as a follow-up and figured this might be the best way (instead of resubmitting through the web cgi stuff). from the bottom of http://nanog.org/mtg-0802/callforpresent.html You may instead submit the presentation information and draft slides in email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] that should probably work randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Cisco outage
Should we remove this person or not? why? just because he calls you on your bs? pfui! pick on someone your own size. randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Cisco outage
It seems to be a cut and dried case of mail bouncing. If mail bounces, the address is not good and should be removed. as mail from the nanog list exploder is not being bounced, but rather marty's personal email is being bounced, i guess you mean that marty should stop sending it. i suspect this might be appreciated by the recipient too :). as has been pointed out, the actual 'problem' is that gmail and many other public smtp senders are being used as spam sources and hence making it into dnsrbls. i just decided to turn off my main smtp receiver's use of qil.mail-abuse.org. randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Cisco outage
To clarify this discussion, I'd like to point out that the bounce in quesiton was from a private email from Marty to J.Oquendo. In response to a post from the list. Same exact thing we have setup with this autoresponder policy. his system bounced a private email from you. he did not send a bounce to the from_ or from: of a message to the list. the list was not involved at all. randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] [admin] RE: Creating a crystal clear and pure Internet
personal opinion the position that politics, culture, and society have no place in internet operations is beyond even an ostrich. they bloody *drive* the car. while we're at it, why not eliminate finances too? sheesh! moving the discussion to the appropriate list. apologies. i hit reply to yours without looking. thought we were in -futures. thanks for redirecting. Should politics/culture/society be on-topic? Or should we maintain this list as *internet operations* list. non-related politics, e.g. whether or not W is a war criminal, would not be useful or seemingly related to internet operations. some actions of the fcc, iana, some court/legal actions, calea, ... on the other hand, do affect us operationally. admittedly it's not always an easy line. What I would like to avoid is list becoming general banter for neteng. Surely, everything is related to operations, somehow. But that doesn't mean it belongs on-list. if it could be automated, we would not need people to help with it. randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: proposed NANOG charter amendments
The issue that arises from it is that there ought to be a requirement that if you are going to make a proposal, claim that you have support, etc. that we have names instead of broad statements like the one above. not sure i have what you're getting at, not even sure which of the two proposed amemndments, but lemme try. the sc as a whole agreed that the requirement that all pc members review all submissions was inappropriate. according to charter, the sc then makes an amendment proposal. a non-sc volunteered to draft a proposed amendment. this was subsequent to sc discussion at our last con call. feeling that it was important to get the members involved as early as possible (and it is kinda late already), it was decided to toss that draft out here in -futures, as opposed to reviewing it just within the sc. as you have seen, even within the sc, there are different feelings about the wording, though not about the general intent. but we felt it would be better to air them here, where non-sc folk would have equal footing. randy
Re: proposed NANOG charter amendments
The original intent seems to have been to provide a mandatory participation bar, which would explain why it is coupled with the 'meet too many meetings and you're out' portion. i believe all this is because, in the past, there was a problem with deadwood on the pc. i think the attempt to relax the requirement that all pc members review everything is, at least partly, due the success of the post-revolution changes giving more accountability and transparency. i wonder if the inclination to put a bunch of words in could possibly be motivated by a lack of total faith that the deadwood problem is fixed or fear that it may re-arise. [ i really mean the word wonder. i really do not know. ] randy
