Re: [Nanog-futures] Moving Forward - What kind of NANOG do we want?

[Shrdlu]

Dmitry Burkov wrote:
> On 04.07.10 1:27, joel jaeggli wrote:

>>On 2010-07-03 13:08, Andy Davidson wrote:

>>>On 3 Jul 2010, at 04:29, Simon Lyall wrote:

Unless people serious intended for the organisation to have regular [1]
meetings outside of North America (which I doubt)

>>> No, don't.  The rest of the world already has $regionNOG.  If
>>> Nanog becaome WorldNOG, someone would make, err, NANOG again.

>>Part of the reason that the rest of the world that *nog is because
>>people came to nanog found the format useful and made it their own, or
>>because nanog participants went there and helped set them up.

> strange for me - as two or three years ago when I first time attended 
> NANOG - I was first and last guy from Russia and - in principle - from 
> exSU who attended NANOG
> (excapt emigrants) - it doesn't means that nobody on the list - but 
> nanog image - like flaming list...

Not even remotely true. Pilosov is just one that springs to mind. He may 
or may not be an immigrant, but I know for sure that he's from Russia. 
There have been others, but I never remember names (unless I had to fill 
out paperwork for foreign contacts, and thank *goodness* I'm now retired).

Still, the point stands. Whether or not people from elsewhere attend 
NANOG meetings, or participate in the mailing list, it is STILL the 
*North* *American* Network Operators' Group. The footprint looms large 
because the footprint of NA is large on the Internet, and because so 
many of the old hands from the beginnings are still on the list 
(although it's been a month of Sundays since I saw George William 
Herbert make a comment).

So it goes.

-- 
Math *is* thinking.
It's dance for the brain.
It is a meta-skill.
Whiskey T. Foxtrot

___
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?

[Dmitry Burkov]

On 04.07.10 1:27, joel jaeggli wrote:
> On 2010-07-03 13:08, Andy Davidson wrote:
>
>> On 3 Jul 2010, at 04:29, Simon Lyall wrote:
>>
>>  
>>> Unless people serious intended for the organisation to have regular [1]
>>> meetings outside of North America (which I doubt)
>>>
>> No, don't.  The rest of the world already has $regionNOG.  If Nanog becaome 
>> WorldNOG, someone would make, err, NANOG again.
>>  
> Part of the reason that the rest of the world that *nog is because
> people came to nanog found the format useful and made it their own, or
> because nanog participants went there and helped set them up.
>

strange for me - as two or three years ago when I first time attended 
NANOG - I was first and last guy from Russia and - in principle - from 
exSU who attended NANOG
(excapt emigrants) - it doesn't means that nobody on the list - but 
nanog image - like flaming list...

regards,
Dima
> we can see from the number of new attendees we get everytime we have a
> meeting that geogrphic proximity plays heavy role in the utility of nogs.
>
>
>> Andy
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>


___
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?

[Dmitry Burkov]

On 03.07.10 22:42, Todd Underwood wrote:
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 11:37 PM, Jay Hennigan > wrote:


On 7/2/10 8:29 PM, Simon Lyall wrote:

> 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.
>
> [1] - At least 50% in Europe, Asia, ROW , not one every 5 years
in Mexico.

[1a] Mexico is part of North America so that doesn't count as outside.



no.  only citizens of the united states and canada consider mexico to 
be part of north america.  mexicans consider north america to begin at 
the rio bravo where the united states start.  they consider mexico to 
be either part of mesoamerica or simply to be mexico.  mexicans refer 
to americans and canadians as 'norteamericanos' explicitly identifying 
it as a difference.
Todd - you are wrong - from formal point of view - if I have US visa - 
now I have no need to get Mexican visa - it is just for example  as we 
see the situation from outside world - sorry


Dima


the 'NAFTA' (north american free trade agreement) in english is simply 
the 'Tratado de Libre Commercio' (Free Trade Agreement) in spanish.


this is not to say that mexico can't be more included in nanog 
activities in the future, but simply to point out this difference in 
perception.


please resume all other quibbling. :-)

t.


--
Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - j...@impulse.net

Impulse Internet Service  - http://www.impulse.net/
Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV

___
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
   


___
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?

[Sean Figgins]

Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:

> The $600 is only the walk-up fee.  NANOG is less if you register earlier, 
> as little as $450.
> 
> As for whether that is expensive or not, I encourage readers to research 
> other conferences and compare for themselves.

Thanks for the clarification.  I remembered it being $450 before, but I 
know costs keep going up and up and I would not be surprised if NANOG 
had to go up to keep up with rising costs.

Considering that om companies won't pay for NANOG, they won't pay for 
the more expensive conferences either.  At least not for their technical 
staff.  VPs often get to go to much more expensive conferences...

  -Sean

___
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?

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

On Jul 2, 2010, at 10:59 AM, Sean Figgins wrote:
> Andy Davidson wrote:
> 
>> A good quality meeting 'Fringe' is a defining characteristic of a mature 
>> community.  Let it happen.  The fringe is the test-bed for stuff too crazy 
>> or early for the formal agenda.  Promote this ad-hoc stuff on the nanog 
>> site.  A good fringe will encourage more long-term attendees and attendee 
>> loyalty ( == revenue) without the program co-ordinators having to do more 
>> work.
> 
> I think that you need to be careful of advertising or promoting this. 
> While it may be expected and accepted that these occur at the meeting, 
> when trying to pitch to your company to send you to a technical 
> conference, it becomes harder to get them to cough up the money when 
> they see it as a large party.  NANOG used to be pretty cheap, but from 
> the recent thread, I see that is is now $600 to attend, plus whatever 
> travel costs.  At a time where many companies are cutting things like 
> reimbursement (or providing) cell phone and home internet access for 
> their technical staff, sending staff to a party seems out of line.

I am intentionally staying out of the back & forth so that others do not think 
I am trying to influence things.  However, I wanted to add an objective fact 
here since no one else seems to have mentioned it.

The $600 is only the walk-up fee.  NANOG is less if you register earlier, as 
little as $450.

As for whether that is expensive or not, I encourage readers to research other 
conferences and compare for themselves.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick


___
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?

[joel jaeggli]

On 2010-07-03 13:08, Andy Davidson wrote:
>
> On 3 Jul 2010, at 04:29, Simon Lyall wrote:
>
>> Unless people serious intended for the organisation to have regular [1]
>> meetings outside of North America (which I doubt)
>
> No, don't.  The rest of the world already has $regionNOG.  If Nanog becaome 
> WorldNOG, someone would make, err, NANOG again.

Part of the reason that the rest of the world that *nog is because 
people came to nanog found the format useful and made it their own, or 
because nanog participants went there and helped set them up.

we can see from the number of new attendees we get everytime we have a 
meeting that geogrphic proximity plays heavy role in the utility of nogs.

> Andy
>
>
> ___
> 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] Moving Forward - What kind of NANOG do we want?

[Andy Davidson]

On 3 Jul 2010, at 04:29, Simon Lyall wrote:

> Unless people serious intended for the organisation to have regular [1]
> meetings outside of North America (which I doubt)

No, don't.  The rest of the world already has $regionNOG.  If Nanog becaome 
WorldNOG, someone would make, err, NANOG again.

Andy


___
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?

[Todd Underwood]

On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 11:37 PM, Jay Hennigan  wrote:

> On 7/2/10 8:29 PM, Simon Lyall wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
> > [1] - At least 50% in Europe, Asia, ROW , not one every 5 years in
> Mexico.
>
> [1a] Mexico is part of North America so that doesn't count as outside.
>


no.  only citizens of the united states and canada consider mexico to be
part of north america.  mexicans consider north america to begin at the rio
bravo where the united states start.  they consider mexico to be either part
of mesoamerica or simply to be mexico.  mexicans refer to americans and
canadians as 'norteamericanos' explicitly identifying it as a difference.

the 'NAFTA' (north american free trade agreement) in english is simply the
'Tratado de Libre Commercio' (Free Trade Agreement) in spanish.

this is not to say that mexico can't be more included in nanog activities in
the future, but simply to point out this difference in perception.

please resume all other quibbling. :-)

t.


>
> --
> Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - j...@impulse.net
> Impulse Internet Service  -  http://www.impulse.net/
> Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV
>
> ___
> 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] Moving Forward - What kind of NANOG do we want?

[Jay Hennigan]

On 7/2/10 8:29 PM, Simon Lyall wrote:

> 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.
> 
> [1] - At least 50% in Europe, Asia, ROW , not one every 5 years in Mexico.

[1a] Mexico is part of North America so that doesn't count as outside.

--
Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - j...@impulse.net
Impulse Internet Service  -  http://www.impulse.net/
Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV

___
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?

[Randy Bush]

> 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?

[Simon Lyall]

On Fri, 2 Jul 2010, Scott Weeks wrote:
> --- j...@west.net wrote:
> group.  This transition is going to be difficult enough without changing
> the fundamental purpose of the organization.
> ---
> I just meant the name.  Nothing else.  That's a biggie, though, as everyone 
> knows the nanog name.

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.

[1] - At least 50% in Europe, Asia, ROW , not one every 5 years in Mexico.

-- 
Simon Lyall  |  Very Busy  |  Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz/
"To stay awake all night adds a day to your life" - Stilgar | eMT.


___
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?

[Daniel Golding]

You can have a professionally run conference without making it a
pay-for-play vendor dominated event. Its not even hard to do.

- Dan

On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Jay Hennigan  wrote:
> On 7/1/10 11:53 AM, Daniel Golding wrote:
>
>> The way forward is to have sharp cut-off from having
>> quasi-professional meetings and transition into having real events.
>> Real events have real sponsorship models, not a few bucks for a break
>> or a beer and gear. Real events are planned a year in advance, not a
>> few months. Real events don't require hosts to dedicate a dozen staff
>> members - they can just write a check.
>
>
> And then...
> On 7/1/10 3:08 PM, Daniel Golding wrote:
>
>> Well, there is one bright line that (I think) everyone can agree with
>> - a permanent and hard separation of sponsorship and program. To the
>> point where people who handle the sponsorships must not be on the
>> program committee and vice-versa.
>>
>> Pay-for-play is fine at a certain sort of conference, but never for
>> NANOG.
>
>
> I re-checked to make sure I didn't screw up the attributions of these,
> posted to the same thread a few hours apart.
>
> For the record, I agree with the 3:08 PM Daniel Golding and disagree
> with the 11:53 AM Daniel Golding.
>
> This is what makes NANOG different from a trade show such as VON or
> ISPCon.  The focus is technical, not vendor-specific sales.  It's worth
> the $600 to me and to my employer because of that, as opposed to free
> entry to exhibits for a traditional trade show with exorbitantly priced
> individual technical sessions, extra if you want the slides or a
> transcript.
>
> If NANOG to date hasn't had real events, you could have fooled me.
>
> --
> Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - j...@impulse.net
> Impulse Internet Service  -  http://www.impulse.net/
> Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV
>
> ___
> 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] Moving Forward - What kind of NANOG do we want?

[Michael Hallgren]

Le vendredi 02 juillet 2010 à 14:12 -0700, Scott Weeks a écrit :
> 
> --- hanni...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Scott Weeks  wrote:
> > --- s...@gibbard.org wrote:
> >
> > NANOG, or NewNOG, or whatever it ends up being called,
> > --
> 
> > Has that already been decided?  It's most certainly not NA operators only.  
> > GNOG? (global)
> 
> 
> : Gadi Evron actually had suggested that some number of years ago. :)
> 
> 
> 
> Me, too.  Sort of. ;-)  Back in 2004.
> 
> http://www.mail-archive.com/na...@merit.edu/msg26005.html
> 
> 
> 
> Then again in 2006:
> 
> http://www.mail-archive.com/na...@merit.edu/msg45644.html
> 

Good posts, good points, no less relevant today ;)

mh 

> 
> scott
> 
> 
> ___
> Nanog-futures mailing list
> Nanog-futures@nanog.org
> https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures


-- 
michael hallgren, mh2198-ripe


___
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?

[Jay Hennigan]

On 7/1/10 11:53 AM, Daniel Golding wrote:

> The way forward is to have sharp cut-off from having
> quasi-professional meetings and transition into having real events.
> Real events have real sponsorship models, not a few bucks for a break
> or a beer and gear. Real events are planned a year in advance, not a
> few months. Real events don't require hosts to dedicate a dozen staff
> members - they can just write a check.


And then...
On 7/1/10 3:08 PM, Daniel Golding wrote:

> Well, there is one bright line that (I think) everyone can agree with
> - a permanent and hard separation of sponsorship and program. To the
> point where people who handle the sponsorships must not be on the
> program committee and vice-versa.
>
> Pay-for-play is fine at a certain sort of conference, but never for
> NANOG.


I re-checked to make sure I didn't screw up the attributions of these,
posted to the same thread a few hours apart.

For the record, I agree with the 3:08 PM Daniel Golding and disagree
with the 11:53 AM Daniel Golding.

This is what makes NANOG different from a trade show such as VON or
ISPCon.  The focus is technical, not vendor-specific sales.  It's worth
the $600 to me and to my employer because of that, as opposed to free
entry to exhibits for a traditional trade show with exorbitantly priced
individual technical sessions, extra if you want the slides or a
transcript.

If NANOG to date hasn't had real events, you could have fooled me.

--
Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - j...@impulse.net
Impulse Internet Service  -  http://www.impulse.net/
Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV

___
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?

[Scott Weeks]

--- j...@west.net wrote:
group.  This transition is going to be difficult enough without changing
the fundamental purpose of the organization.
---



I just meant the name.  Nothing else.  That's a biggie, though, as everyone 
knows the nanog name.

scott
































-
--
-

___
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?

[Jay Hennigan]

On 7/2/10 1:37 PM, Michael Dillon wrote:
>> The intent coming into the change was to move forward with a transition of
>> NANOG, not create a new organization with a different mandate.  The NANOG
>> group mirrors similar groups in other regions and is focused primarily on
>> serving the North American operator community,

Agreed.

> You are wrong there. The intent is now and has always been to serve the
> *INTERNET* operations community. The INTERNET is global.
> 
> NANOG meetings always have participants and speakers from outside of
> North America.

I suggest that we first get up to speed with continuity of what we have
been in the past before attempting to take over the world.

Yes, there have been and I expect will be in the future participants and
speakers from outside North America.  Just as North Americans attend and
speak at other regional groups.  That doesn't change the focus of the
group.  This transition is going to be difficult enough without changing
the fundamental purpose of the organization.

--
Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - j...@impulse.net
Impulse Internet Service  -  http://www.impulse.net/
Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV

___
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?

[Scott Weeks]

--- hanni...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Scott Weeks  wrote:
> --- s...@gibbard.org wrote:
>
> NANOG, or NewNOG, or whatever it ends up being called,
> --

> Has that already been decided?  It's most certainly not NA operators only.  
> GNOG? (global)


: Gadi Evron actually had suggested that some number of years ago. :)



Me, too.  Sort of. ;-)  Back in 2004.

http://www.mail-archive.com/na...@merit.edu/msg26005.html



Then again in 2006:

http://www.mail-archive.com/na...@merit.edu/msg45644.html


scott


___
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?

[Michael Dillon]

> The intent coming into the change was to move forward with a transition of
> NANOG, not create a new organization with a different mandate.  The NANOG
> group mirrors similar groups in other regions and is focused primarily on
> serving the North American operator community,

You are wrong there. The intent is now and has always been to serve the
*INTERNET* operations community. The INTERNET is global.

NANOG meetings always have participants and speakers from outside of
North America.

--Michael Dillon

___
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?

[Michael Dillon]

> NANOG, or NewNOG, or whatever it ends up being called,
> --
>
> Has that already been decided?  It's most certainly not NA operators only.  
> GNOG? (global)

If you check out the initial bylaws at
http://www.newnog.org/docs/initialbylaws.pdf
you will see, in Article 3, the same text from the NANOG charter that says:

The purpose of NewNOG is to provide forums in the North American
region for education and
the sharing of knowledge for the Internet operations community.

The NA refers to the venue of the forums, and nothing else. So there
is no reason why it should
not continue to use the NANOG name. And if check out
http://www.newnog.org/docs/merit_20100608.pdf
you will see that there is a clear intention for Merit to transfer the
NANOG name to the new org.

--Michael Dillon

___
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?

[Martin Hannigan]

On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Scott Weeks  wrote:
>
>
> --- s...@gibbard.org wrote:
>
> NANOG, or NewNOG, or whatever it ends up being called,
> --
>
>
>
> Has that already been decided?  It's most certainly not NA operators only.  
> GNOG? (global)
>
> scott
>



Gadi Evron actually had suggested that some number of years ago. :)

Best,

-M<

___
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?

[Michael K. Smith]

On 7/2/10 1:02 PM, "Scott Weeks"  wrote:

> 
> 
> --- s...@gibbard.org wrote:
> 
> NANOG, or NewNOG, or whatever it ends up being called,
> --
> 
> 
> 
> Has that already been decided?  It's most certainly not NA operators only.
> GNOG? (global)
> 
> scott
> 
The intent coming into the change was to move forward with a transition of
NANOG, not create a new organization with a different mandate.  The NANOG
group mirrors similar groups in other regions and is focused primarily on
serving the North American operator community, although even what
constitutes "North American" is debatable.

But nothing is set in stone.  The working groups, particularly the
Governance working group, will have an opportunity to define the scope of
the new organization going forward.

Mike


___
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?

[Scott Weeks]

--- s...@gibbard.org wrote:

NANOG, or NewNOG, or whatever it ends up being called,
--



Has that already been decided?  It's most certainly not NA operators only.  
GNOG? (global)

scott




































-
---

___
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?

[Steve Gibbard]

On Thu, 1 Jul 2010, Daniel Golding wrote:

> The way forward is to have sharp cut-off from having
> quasi-professional meetings and transition into having real events.
> Real events have real sponsorship models, not a few bucks for a break
> or a beer and gear. Real events are planned a year in advance, not a
> few months. Real events don't require hosts to dedicate a dozen staff
> members - they can just write a check.

I usually find myself agreeing completely with Dan in these future of 
NANOG discussions, but the hard line on sponsorship makes me 
uncomfortable.

I've certainly seen "real events" that function the way Dan describes. 
ISPCon comes to mind.  I'm sure the model makes a lot of sense for their 
for-profit organizers, but for attendees it tends to put up a lot of 
barriers and prevent the sort of freewheeling culture that, for me, makes 
NANOG and the other less formal operator meetings so useful.

NANOG, or NewNOG, or whatever it ends up being called, needs to bring in 
enough money to keep the organization running.  It doesn't need to -- and 
as a non-profit it probably legally can't -- run a big surplus.  Assuming 
we can make ends meet, I'd hate to prioritize money over creativity.

-Steve

___
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?

[Sean Figgins]

Andy Davidson wrote:

> A good quality meeting 'Fringe' is a defining characteristic of a mature 
> community.  Let it happen.  The fringe is the test-bed for stuff too crazy or 
> early for the formal agenda.  Promote this ad-hoc stuff on the nanog site.  A 
> good fringe will encourage more long-term attendees and attendee loyalty ( == 
> revenue) without the program co-ordinators having to do more work.

I think that you need to be careful of advertising or promoting this. 
While it may be expected and accepted that these occur at the meeting, 
when trying to pitch to your company to send you to a technical 
conference, it becomes harder to get them to cough up the money when 
they see it as a large party.  NANOG used to be pretty cheap, but from 
the recent thread, I see that is is now $600 to attend, plus whatever 
travel costs.  At a time where many companies are cutting things like 
reimbursement (or providing) cell phone and home internet access for 
their technical staff, sending staff to a party seems out of line.

  -Sean

___
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?

[Daniel Golding]

Clearly, thats not what anyone is talking about. We are not, as a
rule, academics. We also need a funding model.

We have a wide range of folks, from technical staff to senior
management attend NANOG.

- Dan

On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 6:53 PM, Sean Figgins  wrote:
> On 7/1/10 2:50 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> When I think "commercial," I think about Networkers, or InterOp, where
> they either charge an arm and a leg to participate, or you find a vendor
> to sponsor your attendance.  Either way, in the end, only VPs of
> companies get to go to those, and the technical staff, that could have
> benefited from going does not.  I would prefer to see the NANOG meetings
> more on the technical side, and less on the commercial side.
>
>  -Sean
>
> ___
> 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] Moving Forward - What kind of NANOG do we want?

[Andy Davidson]

On 1 Jul 2010, at 17:59, William Norton wrote:

> 1) We started seeing folks having suite parties,
[...]
> 2) We started seeing people quietly passing out logo'd and funny t-shirts,
[...]
> 4) tours of data centers that don't sponsor NANOG but are local (we geeks 
> like these things),

These are really the same things.  

A good quality meeting 'Fringe' is a defining characteristic of a mature 
community.  Let it happen.  The fringe is the test-bed for stuff too crazy or 
early for the formal agenda.  Promote this ad-hoc stuff on the nanog site.  A 
good fringe will encourage more long-term attendees and attendee loyalty ( == 
revenue) without the program co-ordinators having to do more work.


Andy
___
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?

[Sean Figgins]

On 7/1/10 2:50 PM, Randy Bush wrote:

> 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.

When I think "commercial," I think about Networkers, or InterOp, where 
they either charge an arm and a leg to participate, or you find a vendor 
to sponsor your attendance.  Either way, in the end, only VPs of 
companies get to go to those, and the technical staff, that could have 
benefited from going does not.  I would prefer to see the NANOG meetings 
more on the technical side, and less on the commercial side.

  -Sean

___
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?

[David Temkin]

I feel that that's a silly restriction to codify - you can't solicit 
sponsorships & be on the PC...  There's a reason why it's a program 
committee and not a dictatorship.  People in this community tend to have 
a very easy time sniffing out bullshit.

-Dave

On 7/1/10 3:08 PM, Daniel Golding wrote:
> Well, there is one bright line that (I think) everyone can agree with
> - a permanent and hard separation of sponsorship and program. To the
> point where people who handle the sponsorships must not be on the
> program committee and vice-versa.
>
> Pay-for-play is fine at a certain sort of conference, but never for NANOG.
>
> - Dan
>
> On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Randy Bush  wrote:
>
 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
>


___
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?

[Daniel Golding]

Well, there is one bright line that (I think) everyone can agree with
- a permanent and hard separation of sponsorship and program. To the
point where people who handle the sponsorships must not be on the
program committee and vice-versa.

Pay-for-play is fine at a certain sort of conference, but never for NANOG.

- Dan

On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Randy Bush  wrote:
>>> 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] Moving Forward - What kind of NANOG do we want?

[Randy Bush]

>> 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] Moving Forward - What kind of NANOG do we want?

[William Norton]

Thanks Dan for that thoughtful note.

On Jul 1, 2010, at 11:53 AM, Daniel Golding wrote:

> This is a very long email, so I can't reply to all of it, but here's a try.
> 
> In terms of "room parties" - at regular conferences, those are called
> Hospitality Suites and sponsors pay for the privilege of having them.
> Or, the privilege is inherited as part of a high-lvel sponsorship.
> Either way. (I once got yelled at by Susan Harris for having one of
> these.) The solution is not to allow them, or to forbid them, but to
> provide a mechanism to have them with the organization getting a cut.
> That happens in two ways - you need to be a sponsor of a certain level
> to have the suite, and the food and beverage counts towards our F&B
> minimum.

Interesting - So by providing a more cooperative and financially palatable 
outlet for the activity we can avoid the clash. That hasn't been tried at NANOG 
before - cool.  There will probably still be private parties, but they would 
have to find a quiet way of getting people there.

> 
> The way forward is to have sharp cut-off from having
> quasi-professional meetings and transition into having real events.
> Real events have real sponsorship models, not a few bucks for a break
> or a beer and gear. Real events are planned a year in advance, not a
> few months. Real events don't require hosts to dedicate a dozen staff
> members - they can just write a check.
> 
> 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.  It would be helpful to 
articulate what we *don't want* NANOG to become on the commercialization side 
to make sure we don't overstep a bound.

One area I would like to see discussed out here in the open is the idea of 
having professional commissioned NANOG sales staff.  In the early Merit NANOG 
days we expected sponsors to contact us, perhaps spreading the idea through 
attendee contacts we had.  One could imagine a new organization with a 
commissioned sales person being a tad more aggressive than that.  My personal 
feeling is that this is not really a sustainably volunteer job and is important 
enough to have someone full time on it.  

> 
> The idea of non-sponsors handing out schwag is the same. If we had a
> real sponsorship model, we could say "only Gold sponsors get to do
> that, sorry". Makes life easier for vendors, attendees, and
> organizers.

Just saying - tough to police and has caused friction in the past - a real us 
vs them thing could result when enforced. Just have to think a bit about how to 
communicate and implement.

> 
> As far as crashers - at most conferences, there is an invisible line
> around the sessions themselves. Sometimes, there is security. Common
> areas are generally ok for crashers, but sessions, meals, and
> receptions are not.

I remember we tried security at an early GPF (Gigabit Peering Forum) in Dallas 
at the Infomart.  It was really weird walking past guards into the room. My 
perception was that It caused a palatable but very subtle change in the tone of 
the meeting. That and the cowboy hats ;-).

> 
> Commercialization and exploitation of BOFs has been going on forever.
> Many folks have used the Peering BOF to promote other events, collect
> data, push datacenter properties - whatever. There's always a fine
> line, and you know you have crossed it when you get your ass handed to
> you by someone you respect. It has happened to me, and I learned from
> it. Obviously, repeat offenders shouldn't be on the agenda.
> 
> - Dan

One other NANOG idea I always wanted to see was "Neat Tech Toys for Geeks" - 
the NANOG audience I think is generally tech savvy or at least tech inclined, 
is risk seeking, and willing to be guinea pigs for trying out new stuff at 
NANOG.  

Thanks again for the thoughtful note.

Bill

> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 12:59 PM, William Norton  wrote:
>> I would actually like to steer this to a NANOG-Future topic -- what kind of 
>> NANOG do we want to have?
>> 
>> Sorry this is a little long, but I wanted to share some data points and 
>> context.
>> 
>> An organization is defined by how it behaves.  Just to provide a little 
>> historical context and data for the discussion here...
>> 
>> When I was chairing NANOG in the early days, we tried a bunch of new things, 
>> including beer-n-gear. We pretty much had to use the hotel services and 
>> catering - the costs were pretty high but the sponsors seemed to have the 
>> marketing money to get in front of the attendees. Then we started seeing 
>> more quasi-commercial activities we hadn't seen so much in the 
>> gov't-sponsored NSFNET days 

Re: [Nanog-futures] Moving Forward - What kind of NANOG do we want?

[Daniel Golding]

This is a very long email, so I can't reply to all of it, but here's a try.

In terms of "room parties" - at regular conferences, those are called
Hospitality Suites and sponsors pay for the privilege of having them.
Or, the privilege is inherited as part of a high-lvel sponsorship.
Either way. (I once got yelled at by Susan Harris for having one of
these.) The solution is not to allow them, or to forbid them, but to
provide a mechanism to have them with the organization getting a cut.
That happens in two ways - you need to be a sponsor of a certain level
to have the suite, and the food and beverage counts towards our F&B
minimum.

The way forward is to have sharp cut-off from having
quasi-professional meetings and transition into having real events.
Real events have real sponsorship models, not a few bucks for a break
or a beer and gear. Real events are planned a year in advance, not a
few months. Real events don't require hosts to dedicate a dozen staff
members - they can just write a check.

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.

The idea of non-sponsors handing out schwag is the same. If we had a
real sponsorship model, we could say "only Gold sponsors get to do
that, sorry". Makes life easier for vendors, attendees, and
organizers.

As far as crashers - at most conferences, there is an invisible line
around the sessions themselves. Sometimes, there is security. Common
areas are generally ok for crashers, but sessions, meals, and
receptions are not.

Commercialization and exploitation of BOFs has been going on forever.
Many folks have used the Peering BOF to promote other events, collect
data, push datacenter properties - whatever. There's always a fine
line, and you know you have crossed it when you get your ass handed to
you by someone you respect. It has happened to me, and I learned from
it. Obviously, repeat offenders shouldn't be on the agenda.

- Dan




On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 12:59 PM, William Norton  wrote:
> I would actually like to steer this to a NANOG-Future topic -- what kind of 
> NANOG do we want to have?
>
> Sorry this is a little long, but I wanted to share some data points and 
> context.
>
> An organization is defined by how it behaves.  Just to provide a little 
> historical context and data for the discussion here...
>
> When I was chairing NANOG in the early days, we tried a bunch of new things, 
> including beer-n-gear. We pretty much had to use the hotel services and 
> catering - the costs were pretty high but the sponsors seemed to have the 
> marketing money to get in front of the attendees. Then we started seeing more 
> quasi-commercial activities we hadn't seen so much in the gov't-sponsored 
> NSFNET days :
>
> 1) We started seeing folks having suite parties, in a couple cases these 
> competed with the agenda or with the sponsored socials or BOFs. When I asked 
> about their motivation, just to understand why,  the answers for having these 
> parties instead of participating in beer-n-gear were varied but seemed 
> centered around the cost -  that their little gathering was maybe one-tenth 
> the cost of participating in beer-n-gear and everyone seemed to have a better 
> time in this informal albeit cramped environment.  To me, these parties felt 
> more like a college parties vs. a formal event, and I personally liked the 
> feel of these parties too.
>
> We (the NANOG team at Merit) had to decide how to deal with this - (and 
> newNOG should decide its attitudes on these types of things as well as it 
> defines its culture). We had really three options:
> a) do we play hard ball somehow to prevent the parties? The hotel didn't like 
> them either as they didn't generate any $ for them.
> b) Or let it slide by quietly ignoring (not condoning) the behavior?
> c) Or do we enjoy the party with the rest of the participants?
>
> What actually happened was that people Merit folks were simply not invited to 
> these parties for fear of what their attitude toward the party could be. 
> There was a kind of "hope we don't get caught" on their side and our 
> (personal)  desire to socialize (be invited to the party) like everyone else 
> while (Merit NANOG hat) making sure events didn't clash and the beer-n-gear 
> sponsors didn't bail on the formal events.
>
> I think during my stead we slide towards enjoying the parties that we heard 
> about, and a sort of *unwritten rule* emerged that the parties shouldn't 
> clash with the scheduled agenda events. There was another kind of awkwardness 
> as folks wanted to not clash, but didn't know when things occurred, so these 
> unauthorized party organizers awkwardly had to keep checking the agenda to 
> make sure their little parties didn't clash while not tipping their hat to 
> Merit that they were doing something unsanctioned here.  Eve

[Nanog-futures] Moving Forward - What kind of NANOG do we want?

[William Norton]

I would actually like to steer this to a NANOG-Future topic -- what kind of 
NANOG do we want to have?

Sorry this is a little long, but I wanted to share some data points and context.

An organization is defined by how it behaves.  Just to provide a little 
historical context and data for the discussion here...

When I was chairing NANOG in the early days, we tried a bunch of new things, 
including beer-n-gear. We pretty much had to use the hotel services and 
catering - the costs were pretty high but the sponsors seemed to have the 
marketing money to get in front of the attendees. Then we started seeing more 
quasi-commercial activities we hadn't seen so much in the gov't-sponsored 
NSFNET days :

1) We started seeing folks having suite parties, in a couple cases these 
competed with the agenda or with the sponsored socials or BOFs. When I asked 
about their motivation, just to understand why,  the answers for having these 
parties instead of participating in beer-n-gear were varied but seemed centered 
around the cost -  that their little gathering was maybe one-tenth the cost of 
participating in beer-n-gear and everyone seemed to have a better time in this 
informal albeit cramped environment.  To me, these parties felt more like a 
college parties vs. a formal event, and I personally liked the feel of these 
parties too.

We (the NANOG team at Merit) had to decide how to deal with this - (and newNOG 
should decide its attitudes on these types of things as well as it defines its 
culture). We had really three options:
a) do we play hard ball somehow to prevent the parties? The hotel didn't like 
them either as they didn't generate any $ for them. 
b) Or let it slide by quietly ignoring (not condoning) the behavior? 
c) Or do we enjoy the party with the rest of the participants?  

What actually happened was that people Merit folks were simply not invited to 
these parties for fear of what their attitude toward the party could be. There 
was a kind of "hope we don't get caught" on their side and our (personal)  
desire to socialize (be invited to the party) like everyone else while (Merit 
NANOG hat) making sure events didn't clash and the beer-n-gear sponsors didn't 
bail on the formal events.

I think during my stead we slide towards enjoying the parties that we heard 
about, and a sort of *unwritten rule* emerged that the parties shouldn't clash 
with the scheduled agenda events. There was another kind of awkwardness as 
folks wanted to not clash, but didn't know when things occurred, so these 
unauthorized party organizers awkwardly had to keep checking the agenda to make 
sure their little parties didn't clash while not tipping their hat to Merit 
that they were doing something unsanctioned here.  Even with this awkwardness, 
everyone kind of agreed and things kinda ran smoothly.

NewNOG will have to decide how to handle this type of thing as well.  This 
wasn't documented anywhere before, so I thought I would share it.

2) We started seeing people quietly passing out logo'd and funny t-shirts, one 
of the benefits we marketed to beer-n-gear sponsorship prospects.

This too, during my time we let slide. What were we to do - police the event 
for T-shirts, vendor giveaways not done at the sanctioned times? What fun would 
that be? And for a 501.3c not-for-profit staff (not work for serious money 
compensation or stock), being aggressive about things like this tends to go 
against the personality grain.  

3) And yes, over the years there have always been a few crashers - people 
attending the event without registering or paying. 

The question it seemed to me was the extent of the violation - how long were 
they there, did they eat or drink beer or get t-shirts at beer n gear, etc.  

In one incident we know about, a person stopped at the event to say hi in 
passing, was actually called to the mike to answer a question and then 
community name-and-shamed / chastised the person for not having paid.

In another incident we know about, a person hung out in the lobby and was 
called out for reaping some of the benefits of NANOG (access to the population 
of people attending). To some it didn't matter that zero resources were 
consumed.

In the recent incident, a person looking for a lunch date with a person he 
wouldn't recognize asked for help meeting the person. I assisted in his failed 
search. He was there for only a few minutes and left.

One thing in common - These things sometimes causes some degree of uproar as 
everyone had an opinion as to where the line was.  In most of these events, 
what seemed to cause the most problems to me was *how* the folks in charge of 
NANOG responded - if they did nothing, then people (especially people who paid 
with their own hard earned cash) felt a little cheated, and if the folks 
running things over reacted then the community responded with resentment of 
authority. This IMO was overreaction was one of the straws that broke the 
camel's back and helped roll