Stephen Wilcox wrote:
On 9 Oct 2007, at 18:39, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
Stephen Wilcox wrote:
i'm not sure that sounds like improvement. why cant the charter just
allow them to decide a presentation is worth having without going
through all the hoops that Paul mentions if its appropriate
Martin Hannigan wrote:
I suggest with the best intention possible that marty unwad his shorts
and the rest of us STFU and GBTW.
I'll add others to the list, but yes, in the simplest possible terms, this
thread was a ridiculous waste of time of everyone involved.
Well, Vijay can KMA, but
Stephen Wilcox wrote:
i'm not sure that sounds like improvement. why cant the charter just
allow them to decide a presentation is worth having without going
through all the hoops that Paul mentions if its appropriate?
I don't recall feeling particularly bound by the procedure. In the sense
Randy Bush wrote:
no sc hat at all
I did not think at the time that, that particular message contributed
much to the general tenor of the discussion. The implication I derived
was not that joe nacchio was a felon, we all know this (19 counts of
insider trading), but that .au is still a penal
Martin Hannigan wrote:
How do we determine what people do want to read vs. what they don't?
It would be nice to have some direction. I don't mean from futures,
there's nobody really here, but I mean community wide overall? How do
we determine what people really want to hear about and act
The program committee (I am a member, but not representing) had some
discussion in Toronto on the subject of recruiting tutorials containing
entry level material. Philip's bgp tutorials have always been well
received but most tutorial material we receive is aimed fairly narrowly
at
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
NANOG-L is unique. There isn't anything else devoted to issues for truly
large networks, and the providers that manage the distance between them.
When I see Cisco (or Juniper, or Extreme) announcements about a
vulnerability, those are useful. Nonsense about Solaris 10
