Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?

[michael.dillon]

> I did swing by Radio Shack. It can be done, but then I 
> thought about it and the professional queue system was < 
> $1500. I think that Merit should make an investment in it to 
> improve the conference and speaking experience. It would be 
> well worth it in terms of making things run smoother.

$1500!?

Go to ebay and pick up an old PocketPC for a tenth of that 
and install this speech timer freeware:


Or get an old laptop (386 should do fine) and set it up
to flash cues to the speakers.

--Michael Dillon

___
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?

[Martin Hannigan]

On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 3:05 PM, Joel Jaeggli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Martin Hannigan wrote:

[ clip ]

>  > The point is that something non obtrusive would be better. The soft
>  > lighting of cue lights seems "less" intrusive, but they sure are damn
>  > expensive. I think I'll swing by Radio Shack and see if I can rig up a
>  > system for < $10 + 9v.
>
>  Alternate attempts at improvisation are of course welcome... ;)
>


I did swing by Radio Shack. It can be done, but then I thought about
it and the professional queue system was < $1500. I think that Merit
should make an investment in it to improve the conference and speaking
experience. It would be well worth it in terms of making things run
smoother.

The name of what appears to be the leading company in cue lights is
DSAN, and I think that the PC could come up with the requirements and
then select a proper system.

___
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?

[Joel Jaeggli]

Martin Hannigan wrote:
>>  >> 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.
>>  >
> 
> [ clip ]
> 
>>  When I mc part of the program, I have a powerpoint slide deck with 10 5
>>  and 1 minute markers which I place in the plane of view of the speaker
>>  at the appropriate moments. Not sure if the lightning talks speakers
>>  appreciate that but monday 12:00-13:00 ran smoothly.
> 
> 
> Thanks for sticking your computer in front of us while we're talking?

I knew I could count on a contrarian opinion from someplace...

Personally I've found it less intrusive than poking the speaker or using 
hand gestures...

> The point is that something non obtrusive would be better. The soft
> lighting of cue lights seems "less" intrusive, but they sure are damn
> expensive. I think I'll swing by Radio Shack and see if I can rig up a
> system for < $10 + 9v.

Alternate attempts at improvisation are of course welcome... ;)

> 
> -M<
> 


___
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?

[Michael K. Smith - Adhost]

> -Original Message-
> From: Martin Hannigan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 11:36 AM
> To: Joel Jaeggli
> Cc: nanog-futures
> Subject: Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?
> 
> >  >> 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.
> >  >
> 
> [ clip ]
> 
> >  When I mc part of the program, I have a powerpoint slide deck with
> 10 5
> >  and 1 minute markers which I place in the plane of view of the
> speaker
> >  at the appropriate moments. Not sure if the lightning talks speakers
> >  appreciate that but monday 12:00-13:00 ran smoothly.
> 
> 
> Thanks for sticking your computer in front of us while we're talking?
> 
> The point is that something non obtrusive would be better. The soft
> lighting of cue lights seems "less" intrusive, but they sure are damn
> expensive. I think I'll swing by Radio Shack and see if I can rig up a
> system for < $10 + 9v.
> 
> 
> -M<

http://www.wholesalechess.com/chess/chess_clocks/ChessTimer+Plus+Digital+Chess+Clock?ac=froogl

Regards,

Mike


PGP.sig
Description: PGP signature
___
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?

[Martin Hannigan]

>  >> 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.
>  >

[ clip ]

>  When I mc part of the program, I have a powerpoint slide deck with 10 5
>  and 1 minute markers which I place in the plane of view of the speaker
>  at the appropriate moments. Not sure if the lightning talks speakers
>  appreciate that but monday 12:00-13:00 ran smoothly.


Thanks for sticking your computer in front of us while we're talking?

The point is that something non obtrusive would be better. The soft
lighting of cue lights seems "less" intrusive, but they sure are damn
expensive. I think I'll swing by Radio Shack and see if I can rig up a
system for < $10 + 9v.


-M<

___
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?

[Steve Gibbard]

I'm sorry to be a bit contrarian here, but...

Looking at the crowd that assembles for the peering BOF, it's clearly one 
of the more popular things on the NANOG program.  It may not draw the raw 
numbers of people that the general session does, but it does tend to pack 
whatever room it's in.  People in the room tend to be attentive and 
engaged, whether or not they have anything to do with peering.  It's a lot 
of fun, and it's clear to me that enough attendees want it on the program 
for it to be worthwhile.

That said, while the latest one struck me as a vast improvement over the 
last few, I can't say I've actually learned much from most of the recent 
peering BOFs or from the last few exchange point operator forums I've been 
to.  The agendas tend to strike me as entertaining but recycled filler, 
perhaps useful for getting people into a room and talking, but not nearly 
what they could be.

When I think back to the peering BOFs and exchange operator-sponsored 
forums of several years ago, I used to come out of them with some better 
understanding of how peering worked.  There were talks on things like how 
much of peering traffic was P2P back when that was new and scary.  Large 
parts of the program were made up of "peering personals," where I would 
learn who was looking for what sort of peers.  In addition, there were 
exchange operator-sponsored forums, in which people would give talks about 
peering-related issues they had faced and how they had solved them, 
observations about how peering worked in other parts of the world, views 
into highly secretive "tier 1" peering operations, and the like.

The exchange operator-sponsored forums are now gone, having been replaced 
by parties where the content consists of fake game shows.  The peering BOF 
content now consists of things like the "great debates," which while it's 
entertaining to to see people trying to justify extreme positions, never 
feel to me like they get anywhere close to establishing what the right 
answer to the question being debated -- presumably somewhere between the 
two extremes -- would be.

So, I wouldn't suggest that the current peering BOF or exchange 
operator-sponsored forums go away.  They're good fun social events and 
NANOG could often use more of those.  But I don't think we've run out of 
new things to say, or new issues to address, in the areas of peering and 
other forms of interconnection.  It would be nice if there were some more 
serious forums as well.

(And yes, I know, this counts as sniping from the sidelines.  The big 
impediment to what I'm asking for here is presumably having somebody step 
up and organize it).

-Steve

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008, Ren Provo wrote:

> On behalf of the NANOG PC:
>
> Nothing has been submitted in the NANOG tool and nothing has been declined.
>
> The survey results from NANOG42 this week have not been made available to
> the PC yet.
>
> We would like to review community feedback on this topic.
>
> Hallway discussions this past week in San Jose suggest some would like to
> see a more diverse selection of topics at the very least.
> Bill was asked on Wednesday not to make commitments until we, the NANOG PC,
> are able to review feedback and perhaps expand the cramped format into a
> track.
>
> Thanks, -Ren Provo, NANOG Program Committee, Vice-Chair
>
> On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 8:00 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 24, 2008, at 12:57 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>>> Chris Malayter wrote:
>>
 Would you ask the PC to release the minutes from the SJC nanog and
 any
 meeting since.
>>>
>>> Given that the pc last met on tuesday at lunch, I think the minutes
>>> when
>>> released will prove to be a poor source the sort information you're
>>> looking for.
>>
>> Let's stop dancing around the issue.  There was discussion regarding
>> the Peering BoF amongst the SC & PC.  There is no reason to hide this
>> fact - just the opposite.  And there were at least some provisional
>> outcomes from those discussions.  I am unclear on why those decisions
>> are not being announced to the community.
>>
>> The question is where we stand in the process.
>>
>> If the PC does not have an official stance, then we should all stop
>> speculating until there is an official stance or (hopefully) an
>> official request for input from the community.
>>
>> If the PC has an official stance, then the community needs to hear it
>> ASAP.
>>
>> Either way, gossiping on a mailing list is not the right way.  We had
>> a revolution, let's follow our own rules.  As Randy like to proclaim
>> every 14 ms, let's have some transparency.  What was said, why was it
>> said, and what decisions were made?
>>
>> SC / PC members, please step up, so we can all go back to arguing over
>> leaking deaggs. :)
>>
>> --
>> TTFN,
>> patrick
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Nanog-futures mailing list
>> Nanog-futures@nanog.org
>> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futur

Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?

[Joel Jaeggli]

Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
  >> 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.

When I mc part of the program, I have a powerpoint slide deck with 10 5 
and 1 minute markers which I place in the plane of view of the speaker 
at the appropriate moments. Not sure if the lightning talks speakers 
appreciate that but monday 12:00-13:00 ran smoothly.



___
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?

[Richard A Steenbergen]

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?

[Martin Hannigan]

On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Pete Templin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
>  > Let me rephrase. I'm always skeptical when I hear terms like "a lot of
>  > people told us..." or "everyone feels like" or "there's support for
>  > xyz".
>  >
>  > Who feels like that? Who supports xyz? Who told us? One PC member just
>  > put someone into "context" so I think it's fair to make sure we put
>  > the entire issue into context.

>  Context?  Let's see if that commentary makes it into the survey.  If it
>  does, great.  If it doesn't, we have at least one datapoint that
>  indicates that hallway polling is beneficial feedback which is not being
>  captured (offered?) into the surveys.

That is a good point.

>  > I will restate it. I support the Peernig BoF. Can we now do other
>  > things like figure out how to not let marketing talks slip into the
>  > program?
>
>  Any ideas on how to achieve that?  Only thing I can think of is a PC

I'll try and think of a few. I think that the one I'm thinking about
was a surprise, and you can't really know what every speaker is going
to say or do when they get to the podium. It may not be solvable in
that "context".

>  post-conference review of the talks that were accepted and a comparison
>  to the PC's opinions and comments of the slide presentations submitted.

I did fill out a survey noting my concern. There was one other
concern, now that we are in context mode,  that I think could be
helpful for the PC to evaluate when reviewing all of the things that
they could review to get some more results.

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. 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.

>
>  (Interesting observations come to mind though: ex-MLC members have told
>  me to 'put up or shut up' when trying to discuss how continental borders
>  should influence on/off-topicness, but now a current (last I checked)
>  MLC member thinks "we" should figure out how to police the talks.  Such
>  a varied group are we.)

I don't understand the correlation, but I'm not suggesting that we
police talks from down here in the castle moat.

Were you literally tossed out of the room? What's up with that?


Best Regards,

Marty

___
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?

[Pete Templin]

Martin Hannigan wrote:

> Let me rephrase. I'm always skeptical when I hear terms like "a lot of
> people told us..." or "everyone feels like" or "there's support for
> xyz".
> 
> Who feels like that? Who supports xyz? Who told us? One PC member just
> put someone into "context" so I think it's fair to make sure we put
> the entire issue into context.

I presented at NANOG42.  After answering several individual questions 
off-podium, and getting kicked out of the room (gee, that wasn't nice), 
Todd provided some timely feedback (with good detail) on my presentation.

Context?  Let's see if that commentary makes it into the survey.  If it 
does, great.  If it doesn't, we have at least one datapoint that 
indicates that hallway polling is beneficial feedback which is not being 
captured (offered?) into the surveys.

> I will restate it. I support the Peernig BoF. Can we now do other
> things like figure out how to not let marketing talks slip into the
> program?

Any ideas on how to achieve that?  Only thing I can think of is a PC 
post-conference review of the talks that were accepted and a comparison 
to the PC's opinions and comments of the slide presentations submitted.

(Interesting observations come to mind though: ex-MLC members have told 
me to 'put up or shut up' when trying to discuss how continental borders 
should influence on/off-topicness, but now a current (last I checked) 
MLC member thinks "we" should figure out how to police the talks.  Such 
a varied group are we.)

pt


___
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?

[Martin Hannigan]

On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 2:06 AM, Steve Feldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>  On Feb 27, 2008, at 8:51 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
>  > On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 11:23 PM, Ren Provo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>  > wrote:
>  >> We consider the surveys, in addition to mailing list and hallway
>  >> discussions.
>  >>
>  >
>  > I agree with the first two, but not the last. That's the clubby part.
>
>  I disagree with this assessment of the hallway discussions.
>
>  One of the things I really admire about the current PC is how they
>  actively engage people between and after sessions to solicit feedback.
>  It would be a mistake to ignore this, just as it would be a mistake
>  to ignore any other form of input.
> Steve


Let me rephrase. I'm always skeptical when I hear terms like "a lot of
people told us..." or "everyone feels like" or "there's support for
xyz".

Who feels like that? Who supports xyz? Who told us? One PC member just
put someone into "context" so I think it's fair to make sure we put
the entire issue into context.

I will restate it. I support the Peernig BoF. Can we now do other
things like figure out how to not let marketing talks slip into the
program?

Best,

Marty
-M<

___
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?

[Steve Feldman]

On Feb 27, 2008, at 8:51 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 11:23 PM, Ren Provo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
> wrote:
>> We consider the surveys, in addition to mailing list and hallway
>> discussions.
>>
>
> I agree with the first two, but not the last. That's the clubby part.

I disagree with this assessment of the hallway discussions.

One of the things I really admire about the current PC is how they
actively engage people between and after sessions to solicit feedback.
It would be a mistake to ignore this, just as it would be a mistake
to ignore any other form of input.
Steve


___
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?

[Martin Hannigan]

On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 11:23 PM, Ren Provo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We consider the surveys, in addition to mailing list and hallway
> discussions.
>

I agree with the first two, but not the last. That's the clubby part.

-M<

___
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?

[Ren Provo]

We consider the surveys, in addition to mailing list and hallway
discussions.

A rough cut from SJC was made available during the NANOG PC call this week
but should be posted soon for NANOG42.

Previous survey material -
http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0710/surveyresults.html
http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0706/surveyresults.html
http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0702/surveyresults.html
http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0610/nanog38_suvey_results.html
http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0606/surveys/
etc.

Cheers, -ren
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 10:33 PM, Martin Hannigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> Joel spewed:
>
> >I think it would be remiss of the pc to not review the status of
> >program elements. That would be an abrogation of the >responsibility
> invested the pc by the charter.
>
> >Further I believe that PC review of a popular and successful >program
> element would be with the goal of helping it grow.
>
>
> Can we see the procedure that you're going to make up to do this first?
>
>
> -M<
>
> ___
> 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?

[David Barak]

--- On Wed, 2/27/08, Martin Hannigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> >Further I believe that PC review of a popular and
> successful >program
> element would be with the goal of helping it grow.
> 
> 
> Can we see the procedure that you're going to make up
> to do this first?

I'm not sure that pre-defining procedures of this type is helpful.  Given that 
the general consensus is that the peering BOFs are successful and popular now, 
it's reasonable to expect that the PC has no desire to radically change things 
- this isn't in need of a serious overhaul.  I suspect that writing procedures 
for a review of this nature would be harder than performing said review.

David Barak
Need Geek Rock?  Try The Franchise: 
http://www.listentothefranchise.com



  

Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ 


___
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?

[Martin Hannigan]

Joel spewed:

>I think it would be remiss of the pc to not review the status of
>program elements. That would be an abrogation of the >responsibility
invested the pc by the charter.

>Further I believe that PC review of a popular and successful >program
element would be with the goal of helping it grow.


Can we see the procedure that you're going to make up to do this first?


-M<

___
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?

[Joel Jaeggli]

William Norton wrote:
> To me, the nanog-futures discussion is, how should/did this Steering  
> Committee/Program Committee apparatus, respond to complaints that  
> result from these failures?
 >
> If there is to be a change to this very successful part of NANOG, is  
> it because it has become a fixture of NANOG? To repair some perceived  
> brokenness? To make it better or broader?
> 
> What does the community think it should look like?

Leaving aside the issue of if/what failed for the moment...

I think it would be remiss of the pc to not review the status of program 
elements. That would be an abrogation of the responsibility invested in 
the pc by the charter.

Further I believe that PC review of a popular and successful program 
element would be with the goal of helping it grow.

> Bill
> 
> ___
> 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?

[Martin Hannigan]

>Hallway discussions this past week in San Jose suggest some would
like to see a more diverse >selection of topics at the very least.
>Bill was asked on Wednesday not to make commitments until we, the
NANOG PC, are able to review >feedback and perhaps expand the cramped
format into a track.

Leave it alone. The one comment that I have to contribute for Bill is
he should attempt to see if there's a way to make it not so clubby.
Other than that, I support it being left alone unless there is a real
problem.

Bill should consider proposing the solution himself. I'm sure he can find one.

-M<

___
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?

[William Norton]

On Feb 25, 2008, at 6:39 PM, Philip Smith wrote:

> :

>
> I should mention, as an FYI, that both Peering and Security BoFs have
> been integral part of APRICOT for some time. Apart from the plenary
> session, APRICOT has parallel tracks (we call them streams). The
> organisers of both tracks taking the lead in organising their  
> content in
> conjunction with the APRICOT PC. So formalising the long running  
> BoFs at
> NANOG in a similar way should really not be seen as a backward step.
>>

Philip -

I agree mostly with what you have said, but the "conjunction with the  
APRICOT PC" is a bit looser than I think you imply. Here is what I see.

For the last bunch of years I have been leading the APRICOT peering  
tracks, typically a half day, once a full day, and this year we  
lengthened it to 1.5 days and called it the APRICOT Peering Forum.

At APRICOT, as with NANOG, there is a CFP.  I try and put in a plea in  
there specifically for Peering Coordinators/Network Engineers to talk  
about their peering experiences, buildouts, lessons learned,  
interesting traffic patterns, etc. across Asia and into the US.  I do  
this to bring in those doing or involved in peering to the forum.   
Each year there are about zero talks submitted to the peering track or  
forum through this process.

So I spend three months emailing, cold calling, IRCing, and  
encouraging  folks that I see at other conferences to share the  
interesting stories that they shared with me in the hallways at these  
events, at the APRICOT Peering Forum.  Months before APRICOT they are  
more often interested but non committal, not sure if they will attend  
APRICOT. Typically in the last month or so, folks decide to attend and  
I work with them directly to share a topic and abstract and talk for  
the peering forum agenda. I've been using google docs as the  
repository for the agenda, and have kept Gaurab (APRICOT Program  
Chair) in the loop as I go through the panic("we don't have enough  
topics/speakers"), logistics issues("speakers cancelled, got sick,  
etc"), all the way through to the "ok, phew, we have a good agenda"  
cycle.

Maybe behind the scenes the program chair has shared/reviewed/ 
discussed the peering forum agenda with others, but my perception, as  
with the NANOG Peering BOF the last few years, is that it has been  
more analogous to "Here is a 90 minute block for the Peering  
community, Bill - do the right thing."  So, more of a hands off  
approach than 'conjunction with the APRICOT PC' is my perception.

As for the Peering BOF XVII thing...

Every peering BOF we try something new. Successes include the great  
debates.  Failures or Controversial issues include the transit surveys  
and the attempted humor in the "Peering News".  We make mistakes and  
learn, and try not to make the same mistake twice.  By trying  
something new each time, we will of course stumble upon corresponding  
successes and failures. That flexibility, informality, last minute  
stuff from the field is what makes the Peering BOF fun.

To me, the nanog-futures discussion is, how should/did this Steering  
Committee/Program Committee apparatus, respond to complaints that  
result from these failures?

If there is to be a change to this very successful part of NANOG, is  
it because it has become a fixture of NANOG? To repair some perceived  
brokenness? To make it better or broader?

What does the community think it should look like?

Bill

___
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?

[vijay gill]

On 2/24/08, Richard A Steenbergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 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.



I don't think this is an exception or favoritism. The fact remains that the
peering bof in the format bill has been running it, is one of the most
useful things I've seen at nanog and is a prime motivator to go. If it is
not broken, I am not sure what exactly are you looking to fix.

/vijay


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
>
___
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?

[Philip Smith]

Hi Patrick,

Patrick W. Gilmore said the following on 25/2/08 11:00:
>
> Let's stop dancing around the issue.  There was discussion regarding  
> the Peering BoF amongst the SC & PC.  There is no reason to hide this  
> fact - just the opposite.  And there were at least some provisional  
> outcomes from those discussions.  I am unclear on why those decisions  
> are not being announced to the community.

Yes, there was a brief discussion at the SC meeting on Wednesday - the 
PC Chair participates on the SC as an ex-officio member.

(The minutes have just been passed on to Merit for publication - they 
will be at http://www.nanog.org/sc.minutes08.html, findable from the 
NANOG website home page under General Info -> Steering Committee.)

We noted that complaints had been received about a particular item in 
the Peering BoF, and agreed that the PC should discuss closer review of 
the BoF content with the BoF organisers.

We also discussed in general about BoFs that have become a fixture in 
the programme as opposed to being a once or twice occurrence (which is 
the more normal understanding of BoFs, I'd say). Both the Peering and 
Security BoFs have been a long term and an incredibly valuable part of 
NANOG for many years, so we felt that giving them the true recognition 
they deserved as an integral part of the programme would be something 
worth exploring moving forwards. And of course, being part of the 
programme would mean following the same processes for content review as 
the rest of the NANOG programme.

I should mention, as an FYI, that both Peering and Security BoFs have 
been integral part of APRICOT for some time. Apart from the plenary 
session, APRICOT has parallel tracks (we call them streams). The 
organisers of both tracks taking the lead in organising their content in 
conjunction with the APRICOT PC. So formalising the long running BoFs at 
NANOG in a similar way should really not be seen as a backward step.

> Either way, gossiping on a mailing list is not the right way.

Certainly the rumour mill has been busy...

> SC / PC members, please step up, so we can all go back to arguing over  
> leaking deaggs. :)

Hopefully I've helped clarify. Now let's go back to talking about 
leaking prefixes... :-)

philip
SC Chair
--

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?

[Ren Provo]

On behalf of the NANOG PC:

Nothing has been submitted in the NANOG tool and nothing has been declined.

The survey results from NANOG42 this week have not been made available to
the PC yet.

We would like to review community feedback on this topic.

Hallway discussions this past week in San Jose suggest some would like to
see a more diverse selection of topics at the very least.
Bill was asked on Wednesday not to make commitments until we, the NANOG PC,
are able to review feedback and perhaps expand the cramped format into a
track.

Thanks, -Ren Provo, NANOG Program Committee, Vice-Chair

On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 8:00 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> On Feb 24, 2008, at 12:57 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> > Chris Malayter wrote:
>
> >> Would you ask the PC to release the minutes from the SJC nanog and
> >> any
> >> meeting since.
> >
> > Given that the pc last met on tuesday at lunch, I think the minutes
> > when
> > released will prove to be a poor source the sort information you're
> > looking for.
>
> Let's stop dancing around the issue.  There was discussion regarding
> the Peering BoF amongst the SC & PC.  There is no reason to hide this
> fact - just the opposite.  And there were at least some provisional
> outcomes from those discussions.  I am unclear on why those decisions
> are not being announced to the community.
>
> The question is where we stand in the process.
>
> If the PC does not have an official stance, then we should all stop
> speculating until there is an official stance or (hopefully) an
> official request for input from the community.
>
> If the PC has an official stance, then the community needs to hear it
> ASAP.
>
> Either way, gossiping on a mailing list is not the right way.  We had
> a revolution, let's follow our own rules.  As Randy like to proclaim
> every 14 ms, let's have some transparency.  What was said, why was it
> said, and what decisions were made?
>
> SC / PC members, please step up, so we can all go back to arguing over
> leaking deaggs. :)
>
> --
> 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?

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

On Feb 24, 2008, at 12:57 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> Chris Malayter wrote:

>> Would you ask the PC to release the minutes from the SJC nanog and  
>> any
>> meeting since.
>
> Given that the pc last met on tuesday at lunch, I think the minutes  
> when
> released will prove to be a poor source the sort information you're
> looking for.

Let's stop dancing around the issue.  There was discussion regarding  
the Peering BoF amongst the SC & PC.  There is no reason to hide this  
fact - just the opposite.  And there were at least some provisional  
outcomes from those discussions.  I am unclear on why those decisions  
are not being announced to the community.

The question is where we stand in the process.

If the PC does not have an official stance, then we should all stop  
speculating until there is an official stance or (hopefully) an  
official request for input from the community.

If the PC has an official stance, then the community needs to hear it  
ASAP.

Either way, gossiping on a mailing list is not the right way.  We had  
a revolution, let's follow our own rules.  As Randy like to proclaim  
every 14 ms, let's have some transparency.  What was said, why was it  
said, and what decisions were made?

SC / PC members, please step up, so we can all go back to arguing over  
leaking deaggs. :)

-- 
TTFN,
patrick


___
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?

[Richard A Steenbergen]

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

Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?

[Philip Smith]

Hi Richard,

Richard A Steenbergen said the following on 25/2/08 08:21:
>
>  Making a special exemption for Bill
> Norton (a member of the SC, which elects the PC) could easily give the 
> impression of undue favoritism to the outside world, and defeat all of the 
> work that has been put into providing openness and transparency into the 
> process.

Just a small comment. Bill's service to the community as an SC member 
completed in October last year.

philip
--

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?

[Richard A Steenbergen]

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?

[Joel Jaeggli]

Chris Malayter wrote:
> Hey Joe,
> 
> Would you ask the PC to release the minutes from the SJC nanog and any 
> meeting since.

Given that the pc last met on tuesday at lunch, I think the minutes when 
released will prove to be a poor source the sort information you're 
looking for.

What you liked, didn't like or would like to see on the program on the 
future would be highly appreciated. I gather you like to peering bof. 
What would you do to take to to the next level? Failing that, are their 
related communities of interest that need similar attention?

> Thanks,
> 
> -Chris
> 
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008, Joe Provo wrote:
> 
>> 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.
>> As far as I know, the PC hasn't met to discuss the agenda for 43;
>> if anyone has been other than drumming up talks, they are likely the
>> ones jumping the gun. I would challenge anyone to look at the agenda
>> just passed, past ones with multipart BoFs and Tutorials, et al and
>> not see tracks.  Other than the word (and implied more space), what
>> is so scary about 'tracks'? (no, that's a serious question)
>>
>> [snip]
>>> 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 don't think any suggestion of more times and formal slot on an
>> agenda is anything but indication there is a great deal of support
>> for peering items, but the surveys provide direct feedback.  The
>> headcount in the room (170+ this go round) IMO speak to needing more
>> resources than a small ad-hoc bof room.  When a BoF demonstrates
>> such strong traction as the many year recurring, many hour consuming
>> security and peering bofs, perhaps the legacy sentiment of past PCs
>> need to be shrugged off and these be allowed to 'grow up' to larger
>> agenda space.
>>
>>> 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.
>> I think anyone who thinks that "review of standing program elements
>> like the rest of the program" is the same as "axing" anything needs
>> their head examined.  If people don't want to be transparent and
>> share what they want to present to the PC, what puts them above the
>> rest of the presenters?  Arbitrary program selection was one of the
>> pre-open-process PC we all wanted to move away from, right?
>>
>> Joe, speaking for himself, and thinking the program submission tool
>> is open so anyone interested in getting content submitted for
>> NANOG 43 certainly can!
>>
>> --
>> RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
>>
>> ___
>> 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
> 


___
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]

Hey Joe,

Would you ask the PC to release the minutes from the SJC nanog and any 
meeting since.

Thanks,

-Chris

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008, Joe Provo wrote:

> 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.
>
> As far as I know, the PC hasn't met to discuss the agenda for 43;
> if anyone has been other than drumming up talks, they are likely the
> ones jumping the gun. I would challenge anyone to look at the agenda
> just passed, past ones with multipart BoFs and Tutorials, et al and
> not see tracks.  Other than the word (and implied more space), what
> is so scary about 'tracks'? (no, that's a serious question)
>
> [snip]
>> 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 don't think any suggestion of more times and formal slot on an
> agenda is anything but indication there is a great deal of support
> for peering items, but the surveys provide direct feedback.  The
> headcount in the room (170+ this go round) IMO speak to needing more
> resources than a small ad-hoc bof room.  When a BoF demonstrates
> such strong traction as the many year recurring, many hour consuming
> security and peering bofs, perhaps the legacy sentiment of past PCs
> need to be shrugged off and these be allowed to 'grow up' to larger
> agenda space.
>
>> 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.
>
> I think anyone who thinks that "review of standing program elements
> like the rest of the program" is the same as "axing" anything needs
> their head examined.  If people don't want to be transparent and
> share what they want to present to the PC, what puts them above the
> rest of the presenters?  Arbitrary program selection was one of the
> pre-open-process PC we all wanted to move away from, right?
>
> Joe, speaking for himself, and thinking the program submission tool
> is open so anyone interested in getting content submitted for
> NANOG 43 certainly can!
>
> --
> RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
>
> ___
> 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?

[Chris Malayter]

http://www.fotosearch.com/comp/ARP/ARP113/blow-hard-~-Blow.jpg

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008, Randy Bush wrote:

> http://xkcd.com/386/
>

___
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?

[Joe Provo]

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.

As far as I know, the PC hasn't met to discuss the agenda for 43; 
if anyone has been other than drumming up talks, they are likely the 
ones jumping the gun. I would challenge anyone to look at the agenda 
just passed, past ones with multipart BoFs and Tutorials, et al and 
not see tracks.  Other than the word (and implied more space), what 
is so scary about 'tracks'? (no, that's a serious question)

[snip]
> 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 don't think any suggestion of more times and formal slot on an 
agenda is anything but indication there is a great deal of support 
for peering items, but the surveys provide direct feedback.  The 
headcount in the room (170+ this go round) IMO speak to needing more 
resources than a small ad-hoc bof room.  When a BoF demonstrates
such strong traction as the many year recurring, many hour consuming
security and peering bofs, perhaps the legacy sentiment of past PCs 
need to be shrugged off and these be allowed to 'grow up' to larger
agenda space.

> 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.

I think anyone who thinks that "review of standing program elements 
like the rest of the program" is the same as "axing" anything needs 
their head examined.  If people don't want to be transparent and 
share what they want to present to the PC, what puts them above the
rest of the presenters?  Arbitrary program selection was one of the 
pre-open-process PC we all wanted to move away from, right?

Joe, speaking for himself, and thinking the program submission tool 
 is open so anyone interested in getting content submitted for 
 NANOG 43 certainly can!
 
-- 
 RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE

___
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?

[Randy Bush]

http://xkcd.com/386/

___
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]

>
> thanks mr murdoch.
>
No problem Mr Hyde

> rumors of the bof's or bill's death are probably a bit exaggerated.
>
Was just trying to get some transparency as to what was going on with it.

> randy
>

Chris

___
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?

[vijay gill]

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] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?

[Randy Bush]

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

[Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?

[Chris Malayter]

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.

-Chris

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures