Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 09:48:30AM -0500, Martin Hannigan wrote: The lightning talk expansion is great. The format is ok. I think that we should expand the time for lightning talks to include a 10 minute Q/A period at the end of the period instead of trying to cram questions into the end of the 10 minute time slot. We could take questions for all of the talks at the end period. I received questions about my talk in the hallways that the entire group did not get the benefit of (or the boredom in listening to) the answers. Your talk was more than detailed and interesting enough to belong in the general session. Lightning talks shouldn't be used as an alternative to real presentations, or you suffer the consequences you mentioned above. Next time submit it for the general session, I for one would have voted for it. We might also want to invest in a timer that moves from green/yellow/red based on the alloted time. I noticed that some people were held to a rock solid standard, others weren't. It's distracting when the speaker gets verbal time warnings(not anyones fault, it just is). Time ticks are needed, but there's a better way to do it, methinks. Wholeheartedly agreed. Even a $5 alarm clock with a big LCD on the stage would be an major improvement, it's difficult to tell how you're doing for time or if you should speed things up or slow things down when you're in the middle of a presentation. -- Richard A Steenbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC) ___ 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?
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 03:12:55AM -0600, 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. Pretty odd rumors. Considering that a large portion of the PC has an extensive background in peering, and that all of the peering events are consistently popular among nanog attendees, I can't imagine why anyone would think that there is any kind of plan to eliminate them. That said, I personally think it is pretty inappropriate for us to assume that there will always be a standing Peering BOF, and that it will always be hosted by Bill Norton, without any review of the content or other submissions on the subject. Every other piece of content which is presented at NANOG, including every other BOF, is selected and approved by the PC as per their job description. 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. As far as I am aware there hasn't been any official discussion regarding the peering events for NANOG 43 yet, but speaking strictly for myself here, my personal inclination would be to expand them and work to increase and improve their content, not the other way around. -- Richard A Steenbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC) ___ 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?
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 09:28:06AM +1000, Philip Smith wrote: 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. Ah, indeed, I should be paying more attention to these things. :P At any rate the point remains basically the same, we shouldn't be creating exemptions which look like favoritism. Also note that I mean absolutely no disrespect to Bill's contributions to both the SC and the Peering BOF throughout the years. He has done an excellent job on all fronts, and is a valued contributor to the NANOG community, but I don't think that means we should be making special exemptions to the normal PC process for him or anyone else. My comments were about fairness and transparency in the process, not saying that Bill shouldn't continue to be involved with the Peering BOF or any other peering events. If that sentiment is in any way associated the previously mentioned rumors that there won't be a peering BOF or that Bill won't be involved, I would call that a misinterpretation. My personal opinions at any rate. -- Richard A Steenbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC) ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
