Re: [Nanog-futures] WBN and NANOG-Crashing
adam, stop muck raking. in general, I'd advocate spending less time on mailing lists and focusing more on delivering great product. /vijay On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Adam Rothschild asr+nanog-futu...@latency.net wrote: I've been trying to avoid this topic, though as one of few participants familiar with MediaMelon's account of what happened (we've been looking at their product, independently of this all), I feel obligated to offer my two cents... The underlying facts are not in dispute -- Kumar from MediaMelon *did* meet Bill Norton for lunch in San Francisco. Following Bill's advice, Kumar entered the plenary, in search of some Netflix staffers to pitch his product to. In hindsight, Kumar regrets deeply having done this. As a relative newcomer to the community, he looked to Bill for leadership, and was unfortunately offered bad advice on acceptable standards of conduct and engagment. The sliver lining in this incident is that I've gotten a commitment from Kumar and crew to donate to NewNog. I get the feeling they'd compensate Merit for a lost registration in San Francisco, too, if requested. The important thing to keep in mind is that we're dealing with a fundamentally good bunch of folk, though newcomers, who had fallen victim to bad advice. With that said, and given what transpired, I think the responsible course of action is for us to all pressure Bill for the funds, falling back to MediaMelon's generous offer as a last resort. He's obviously trying to downplay the importance of this, though with some polite-but-persistent reminders (in response to posted diatribes, in person, ...), he's sure to cave eventually. I'll be sure to keep the community apprised of any movement on this front. -a ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] wazza plan
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 12:00 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: 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. /vijay randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] wazza plan
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 1:02 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: 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. I've been pinged out of band by several people I have respect for, I withdraw my statement and am willing now to wait for the plan as per your timeline. /vijay 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] [NANOG-announce] The Evolution of NANOG
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Steve Meuse sme...@mara.org wrote: Randy Bush expunged (ra...@psg.com): 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. I'll second that. I'll admit to my jaw dropping when I read the announcement, but I think it's the direction we need to go (and maybe even long overdue). Merit has done a great job, but I think the nature of the relationship has needed to change. Any specifics that required the nature of the relationship to change? /vijay -Steve ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures ___ 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
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 9:52 AM, Steve Meuse sme...@mara.org wrote: vijay gill expunged (vg...@vijaygill.com): I'll second that. I'll admit to my jaw dropping when I read the announcement, but I think it's the direction we need to go (and maybe even long overdue). Merit has done a great job, but I think the nature of the relationship has needed to change. Any specifics that required the nature of the relationship to change? Although Merit worked hard in recent years to take more of a community approach, in the end, Merit has final say on all things Nanog. In my personal opinion, that needs to change. Are we an independent community based organization, or a community based organization that has parental supervision? What were some specific issues. /vijay -Steve ___ 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
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Steve Meuse sme...@mara.org wrote: vijay gill expunged (vg...@vijaygill.com): What were some specific issues. It's not my intention to re-hash that last four years of community meetings (maybe you some show up more frequently?) :) I have been to a few and I read the notes. Still not quite sure what problem this is hoping to solve. /vijay -Steve ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Bhutan discovers the NANOG Problem...
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 3:28 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let this be a vote for *no* on shutting off net access. It's not really an either/or situation. There are ways to have both, and, as we both pointed out, there are good reasons why speakers should not assume that room full of laptop users means their talk is being ignored. There is still an attentive audience, either in the room following along on their laptop or elsewhere watching the video today or tomorrow or next year. It really is an either/or situation. Any kind of attempt to force attention by using a coercive function such as shutting of network access will result in epic failure. Simply because the network acts as a safety valve in case of a really boring presentation. Anyone remember the red-router-blue-router preso a few years ago? If there was no net to act as a valve, I believe the audience could have turned violent and we don't want our presenters dismembered and the body parts strewn about now do we? If you think getting material is hard now, wait till the first mob attack happens and then try to solicit presentations. In short, instead of coercive action, how about the presenters learn to be more relevant, interesting, or fun. /vijay ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Rudeness because presenters suck.
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 5:12 PM, Alan Clegg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mike Hughes wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, vijay gill wrote:
In short, instead of coercive action, how about the presenters learn to
be
more relevant, interesting, or fun.
I'll second that [...]
If I were ever asked to present at NANOG and I were to see this comment,
I'd be sure to strike that commitment off the calendar.
I think that blaming the SPEAKER for not being relevant enough is a
pretty damning condemnation of your program committee. Speakers tell
the committee what they are talking about long before they are on stage.
Not all speakers are interesting or fun -- perhaps because they are
talking on topics that are .. uh .. technical and dry?
I am going to have to go ahead and call BS on this one there ok? I present a
few counter examples: fenyman for example, and tufte - he is talking about
graphs and statistics for crying out loud.
Not everyone that you get to speak has a good background in giving
presentations. Lots of them are technical folks that would rather be
hacking code or manipulating routing tables than behind a microphone.
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.
Disrespect for a speaker that you feel is irrelevant, boring and un-fun
just shows that you are a rude and elitist audience.
No, it means that the data presented were not interesting or that the
speaker was horrible. You need both to be true for people to become hostile.
I have seen speakers with excellent content and data and that had the
audience riveted because they data they were showing was excellent even
though they were non-native english speakers presenting to predominantly
english-speaking audiences.
To be clear, I'm not advocating removing network access for the
attendees, just a change of attitude regarding the appropriate use of
the connection that is made available.
You can run your people should do x because it is expected of them and it
will fail at nanog because simply the group is very large now and people
have anonymity, therefore social coercion won't work either - you are not at
a dinner table at a senior faculty room at oxford, chatting over a glass of
port and a good cigar to 15 people. You are under the lights with 500+ of
your closest friends. The only thing that will work is either be
entertaining or be interesting - preferably both.
AlanC {Dale Carnegie trained speaker, presenter, relevant, interesting
and fun guy that had thought about presenting at NANOG, but won't now}
Talk is cheap. I have discovered a truly remarkable proof, which this margin
is too small to contain.
/vijay
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFIfMxVcKpYUrUDCYcRAt8EAJ0YCtrjamGWbZPT/AfHp4miujgjoQCbBTjj
Rov5THNRhKgkWS10fQKRKeQ=
=yZ7M
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] level of fail [was: The Peering BOF and the Fallout?]
On 2/24/08, Patrick W. Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 24, 2008, at 4:19 AM, vijay gill wrote: I would like the voice my support for the peering bof, it is by far the most entertaining item at nanog. You cannot see this much level of fail in one place, and for this reason alone, not only should it continue, the hours should be expanded to cover a full day. Would you mind expanding upon You cannot see this much level of fail in one place? (I'm not even sure that sentence is English.) My feeling is that you were being sarcastic, trying to imply the peering BoF is full of people who are failing, but it's hard to be certain in this communications medium. If you do not like the Peering BoF, perhaps you could make your reasons more clear? If you like the Peering BoF, sorry I have misinterpreted you. I love the peering bof, it should be expanded. Let me give my reasons why. I am making an assertion, feel free to correct them if you or anyone else disagrees. 1) The most useful part of typical internet ops related conferences are not the sessions, but the bar bofs, corridor talks, face to face conversations in a fairly unstructured environment. The peering bof is a great medium for facilitating intercommunication in a semi structured environment, interactivity is high, and frankly, the peering bof is one of the large unstated reason I come to NANOG at all. Bill has been doing it for a while, he knows how to run it, it is useful and entertaining, a deadly combination. Some people get offended, and frankly, so what. I think thats actually useful, I come to nanog to learn and argue, not politely nod my head and clap when the talk is over. Removing the BOF and or turning it into some sort of overtly structured environment would make it boring and not as useful, which is bad. /vijay -- TTFN, patrick ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures ___ 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 2/24/08, Chris Malayter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. I would like the voice my support for the peering bof, it is by far the most entertaining item at nanog. You cannot see this much level of fail in one place, and for this reason alone, not only should it continue, the hours should be expanded to cover a full day. /vijay ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Get those presenations in for NANOG42 please
On 12/3/07, Martin Hannigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is the second time someone from the Program Committee has posted something that seemed to be asking for something to help our success or informing people about standard (revenue generating even) functions of NANOG and that they believe that these types of emails related to the conference program are not relevant to the main list. Marty, put down the rock made from crack. /vijay Why is that? -M On Dec 3, 2007 1:09 PM, Ren Provo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi folks, This is a reminder to submit presentations for NANOG42 in San Jose, CA to be held February 2008. Quality abstracts have been arriving over the past month. A few people promised to send along presentations in December. If anyone has a work in progress to submit please do so now. The program committee will meet this week to pull together the rough draft of the agenda for NANOG42. We have confirmed a keynote speaker and several interesting panels are on the schedule already. We have some flexibility for tutorials on Sunday and a few general assembly speaker slots at this point. There will be blocks for lightning talks each day and you may submit presentations in advance of February. This is a good thing based on survey info. Our goal is to set forth a solid agenda for folks to utilize when mulling travel requests this month. http://www.nanog.org/presentations.html is the best location to review for complete submission guidelines. ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
