Re: [Nanog-futures] level of fail [was: The Peering BOF and the Fallout?]
From personal experience, it is easier to attend Nanog 1000 miles away than 10 miles away. Work/Family pull me away when close to home. Chrisitan From: Todd Underwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 5:57 AM To: vijay gill Cc: Nanog Futures Subject: Re: [Nanog-futures] level of fail [was: The Peering BOF and the Fallout?] vijay, On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 08:08:54PM -0800, vijay gill wrote: The peering bof is a great medium for facilitating intercommunication in a semi structured environment, interactivity is high, and frankly, the peering bof is one of the large unstated reason I come to NANOG at all. hrm. just a quick reality check. that reason is now stated :-) and you *didn't* attend this past nanog when it was 10 miles away from where you live. right? i just want to make sure your comments are put in perspective. i don't even necessarily disagree with the content. t. -- _ todd underwood +1 603 643 9300 x101 renesys corporationgeneral manager babbledog [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.renesys.com/blog ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] level of fail [was: The Peering BOF and the Fallout?]
On 26-Feb-2008, at 08:57, Todd Underwood wrote: hrm. just a quick reality check. that reason is now stated :-) and you *didn't* attend this past nanog when it was 10 miles away from where you live. right? Hey, I thought we were all about counting remote attendees as real people? :-) Joe ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] level of fail [was: The Peering BOF and the Fallout?]
On 26-Feb-2008, at 15:53, Joel Jaeggli wrote: Joe Abley wrote: On 26-Feb-2008, at 08:57, Todd Underwood wrote: hrm. just a quick reality check. that reason is now stated :-) and you *didn't* attend this past nanog when it was 10 miles away from where you live. right? Hey, I thought we were all about counting remote attendees as real people? :-) It's slightly harder with bofs that aren't broadcast or recorded. Oh, true. :-) Joe ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] level of fail [was: The Peering BOF and the Fallout?]
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 26-Feb-2008, at 15:53, Joel Jaeggli wrote: Hey, I thought we were all about counting remote attendees as real people? :-) It's slightly harder with bofs that aren't broadcast or recorded. Oh, true. :-) -- As a LONG time remote attendee, I definitely don't feel like a 'real people'. I miss too much from what's not streamed. The streaming to the 'non-real people' procedure could definitely use some work. scott I know what you all look like at 1 inch, but I don't know if I'd recognize you at real size... ;-) ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] level of fail [was: The Peering BOF and the Fallout?]
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008, Christian Nielsen wrote: From personal experience, it is easier to attend Nanog 1000 miles away than 10 miles away. Work/Family pull me away when close to home. I think Perth, Western Australia is about as far from anywhere else in the Western World you can get. I'd be all for a NANOG being held here. There's definitely a its too hard limit. :) Adrian ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] level of fail [was: The Peering BOF and the Fallout?]
On 2/24/08, Patrick W. Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 24, 2008, at 4:19 AM, vijay gill wrote: I would like the voice my support for the peering bof, it is by far the most entertaining item at nanog. You cannot see this much level of fail in one place, and for this reason alone, not only should it continue, the hours should be expanded to cover a full day. Would you mind expanding upon You cannot see this much level of fail in one place? (I'm not even sure that sentence is English.) My feeling is that you were being sarcastic, trying to imply the peering BoF is full of people who are failing, but it's hard to be certain in this communications medium. If you do not like the Peering BoF, perhaps you could make your reasons more clear? If you like the Peering BoF, sorry I have misinterpreted you. I love the peering bof, it should be expanded. Let me give my reasons why. I am making an assertion, feel free to correct them if you or anyone else disagrees. 1) The most useful part of typical internet ops related conferences are not the sessions, but the bar bofs, corridor talks, face to face conversations in a fairly unstructured environment. The peering bof is a great medium for facilitating intercommunication in a semi structured environment, interactivity is high, and frankly, the peering bof is one of the large unstated reason I come to NANOG at all. Bill has been doing it for a while, he knows how to run it, it is useful and entertaining, a deadly combination. Some people get offended, and frankly, so what. I think thats actually useful, I come to nanog to learn and argue, not politely nod my head and clap when the talk is over. Removing the BOF and or turning it into some sort of overtly structured environment would make it boring and not as useful, which is bad. /vijay -- TTFN, patrick ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] level of fail [was: The Peering BOF and the Fallout?]
--- On Tue, 2/26/08, vijay gill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Removing the BOF and or turning it into some sort of overtly structured environment would make it boring and not as useful, which is bad. then i suggest you not do it! I am very against any such action. I wish to state for the record that I do NOT want oversight of the bof, the very spontaneity is what brings out the true value for me This is the most violent agreement I've ever seen. 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
[Nanog-futures] level of fail [was: The Peering BOF and the Fallout?]
On Feb 24, 2008, at 4:19 AM, vijay gill wrote: I would like the voice my support for the peering bof, it is by far the most entertaining item at nanog. You cannot see this much level of fail in one place, and for this reason alone, not only should it continue, the hours should be expanded to cover a full day. Would you mind expanding upon You cannot see this much level of fail in one place? (I'm not even sure that sentence is English.) My feeling is that you were being sarcastic, trying to imply the peering BoF is full of people who are failing, but it's hard to be certain in this communications medium. If you do not like the Peering BoF, perhaps you could make your reasons more clear? If you like the Peering BoF, sorry I have misinterpreted you. -- TTFN, patrick ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
