>
>
> i find "prohibited" to be unnecessarily strong.
>
>
> looks pretty much as expected from meeting and discussion between sc and
> mlc.
What do you see that's different from what the MLC initial vote
approved, what the community approved, and what you got?
Folks,
FYI
-- Forwarded message --
From: Alex Pilosov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Oct 30, 2007 2:33 PM
Subject: [nanog-admin] Vote on AUP submission to SC
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sorry for the delay, I was catching up with RL things after nanog.
I'd like to call for a vote on mod
On 10/30/07, William B. Norton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/30/07, Martin Hannigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 10/30/07, Joe Abley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 30-Oct-2007, at 12:55, Andy Davidson wrote:
> > >
>
d to the Internet needs to
be segregated from the main list, just the politics and kookery. I'm
not in favor of mailops@ since opening up such a topic as a free for
all is a recipe for disaster.
Spam-l is well established and accepts operators. Go west young man.
Otherwise, use your kill file, Luke.
Martin Hannigan
NANOG MLC Memeber
On 10/16/07, Jared Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 01:03:36PM -0400, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> > At 60 votes, that's .6% participation. If we don't hit at least 2, we
> > ought to seriously consider disbanding the current "evolu
At 60 votes, that's .6% participation. If we don't hit at least 2, we
ought to seriously consider disbanding the current "evolution".
-M<
On 10/16/07, Betty J. Burke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All:
>
> Please encourage everyone to take advantage of the process ..
>
> Voting activity picked up
Lucy,
What is your opinion on Randy Bush's latest post to the NANOG List?
Best,
Martin
Thanks folks! All set.
Marty
On 10/15/07, Martin Hannigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi folks, I'm at the NANOG meeting and I seem to have left my PDF
> writer at home. Anyone interested in PDF'ing a PPT for me? The work to
> convert is related to the MLC presentat
Hi folks, I'm at the NANOG meeting and I seem to have left my PDF
writer at home. Anyone interested in PDF'ing a PPT for me? The work to
convert is related to the MLC presentation we did yesterday with
proposed changes to the AUP and the AUP support policies.
Thanks in advance,
Martin
Feedback from community meeting:
Original text:
MLC will seek internal consensus on warnings
Revised Text:
MLC will seek internal consensus on warnings and warnings will be
clearly identified as such
Rationale: You will know if you get a warning. If it isn't labeled "A
warning", it isn't "a wa
On 10/10/07, Scott Weeks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Probably not feasible to do a non web forms based survey, but the list
> users would be target. Lets be happy that one may get done at all. If
> you dont have web, Ill call you and you and do it over phone.
> -
Probably not feasible to do a non web forms based survey, but the list
users would be target. Lets be happy that one may get done at all. If
you dont have web, Ill call you and you and do it over phone.
On 10/10/07, Scott Weeks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 10/
On 10/10/07, Scott Weeks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 10/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > How do we determine what people do want to read vs. what they don't?
> >
> > Do a survey.
>
> We're going to.
> --
On 10/9/07, Scott Weeks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 wid
On 10/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > How do we determine what people do want to read vs. what they don't?
>
> Do a survey.
We're going to.
-M<
>
> > 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 point taken. My sh
On 10/9/07, vijay gill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On 10/8/07, Joel Jaeggli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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 d
On 10/8/07, Jim Popovitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 18:46 -0400, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> > Just so we're clear, you will continue to see requests to adapt to the
> > AUP wrt to being on topic. If you don't like that, you can certainly
>
On 10/8/07, Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Just so we're clear, you will continue to see requests to adapt to
> > the AUP wrt to being on topic.
>
> your complaint to me was not about topic, but rather about ad homina.
> to quote
>
> > And as you know, the NANOG AUP specifically discoura
[ snip, nobody cares about Telstra or the embedded baiting ]
> if it was just marty being on a piss off about me, then no big deal; i
> can handle marty (and certainly am in no position to abuse him for being
> hot-headed).
Hot-headed for what reason? Because you are off topic as usual? Not
quite
> At this point, since Marty stated that it wasn't intented to be a warning,
> I think it makes the matter of the 'appeal' moot. Can we now return to
> regularly scheduled programming?
To be clear, I don't subscribe to any of the reasoning (tripe) you are
presenting. The "roots" issue is not a lac
On 10/8/07, Joe Provo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 12:11:17PM +0100, Stephen Wilcox wrote:
> [snip]
> > i guess it could be 'character assassination' or 'political' which
> > are both against the AUP
>
> [mild tangent: How can the blanket label of "political" be
> off-topic
Minutes here:
http://www.nanog.org/sc.minutes07.html#mar22
On 3/13/07, Martin Hannigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> DNS operations
> mechanics of voip
> network instrumentation
> ids/ips deployment
> understanding flow/packet capture output
> noc practices (monitoring/ticketing)
> setting up a looking-glass
> deploying lo
Minutes for the 22 FEB SC meeting have been posted.
http://www.nanog.org/sc.minutes07.html#feb22
> > The data shows random based on time of year vs. avg
> > temperature vs. attendees.
>
> Given that the data didn't include any information about average
> temperature, I'm not sure that's accurate :-)
Oh, sorry! Acquired from NOAA and Environment Canada. It's quite
accurate.
> Merit's pr
>
>
> On 26-Feb-2007, at 17:39, Jared Mauch wrote:
>
[ snip ]
>
> We expect (empirically) a dip in the winter meetings, which I think
> is illustrated by the numbers above (with Toronto and Salt Lake City
> as outliers). The theory that is most frequently put forward to
> explain the wi
>
> On Feb 26, 2007, at 11:42 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
[ snip ]
> But your arguments about financial considerations are, in your own
> words, a straw-man. The _very_first_post_ in this thread said:
>
> > It appears that we can expect hotel costs to be quite a bit low
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 10:42:00PM -0500, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> > >
> > > > One of the reasons why these spots are in the LACNIC region
> > > > is language. They don't speak english.
> > >
> > > OH MY GHOD!
>
> > One of the reasons why these spots are in the LACNIC region
> > is language. They don't speak english.
>
> OH MY GHOD! HEATHENS! let's bomb them quickly.
>
We already did, and, there are many factors that predispose this to a bad idea
including language. You can start by lowering the $
>
>
> On 26-Feb-2007, at 15:00, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
> >> (I realise that because the Dominican Republic is served by LACNIC
> >> you think it's not in North America either; however, you might just
> >> have to acknowledge that others have di
>
>
> On 26-Feb-2007, at 14:39, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
> >> On 26-Feb-2007, at 13:05, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> >>
> >>> What reason would NANOG have for holding a meeting in DR?
> >>
> >> Same as for any other place -- it's a l
>
> On Feb 26, 2007, at 1:05 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
> > What reason would NANOG have for holding a meeting in DR? Not a lot
> > of context. DR is also in the LACNIC region. LACNIC has meetings
> > similiar to RIPE in content i.e. policy and ops.
> >
>
>
> On 26-Feb-2007, at 13:05, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
> > What reason would NANOG have for holding a meeting in DR?
>
> Same as for any other place -- it's a location that we received a
> good proposal for.
If you received a proposal to hold one in Lond
>
>
> On 26-Feb-2007, at 11:39, Cat Okita wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 26 Feb 2007, Joe Abley wrote:
> >> We would be interested to hear what people think about this idea.
> >> For example:
> >>
> >> How would this fit with your corporate travel policies?
> >>
> >> Would you be more or less likely to
>
>
> How about a survey of the mailing list members to see what they think? -
> Simon J. Lyall
>
> Considering that this is a mailing list to supplement the NANOG meetings how
> about if we restrict the poll participants to people who have attended a
> NANOG in the last 12 months!
>
Ron,
E
>
>
> On 20-Feb-2007, at 13:25, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
> > And this should be requirements driven instead of
> > brand driven.
>
> I have no reason to think that isn't happening.
>
>
That wasn't necessarily directed at you or Madame Etaoin.
-M<
>
>
> On 20-Feb-2007, at 11:05, Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
>
[ snip ]
> migration from majordomo to Mailman.
And this should be requirements driven instead of
brand driven.
-M<
>
>
> On 20-Feb-2007, at 04:37, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> But I worry slightly that we are spending time thinking up solutions
> >> to things that are not problems for most people subscribed to
> >> the list.
> >
> > Do I take it you believe that the people who complain about
> > posti
>
> the aup seems to work
How do you come up with that? Not subscribed to the list? The MLC
actions are not a measure of the AUP working or not.
What percentage of this weeks load is on topic?
-M<
>
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2007, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
> > I created a draft Wiki article to try and bring together everything
> > we've argued^H^H^H^H^H^H^H discussed over the last few years and I it
> > boils down to a few standards (duh).
> >
I created a draft Wiki article to try and bring together everything we've
argued^H^H^H^H^H^H^H discussed over the last few years and I
it boils down to a few standards (duh).
http://nanog.cluepon.net/index.php/Will_of_the_Members
I don't know if this will work, but my motiviation is an
experi
>
>
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> >> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg45167.html is
> >> about volume.
> >>
> >> for me, it's not the volume, per se. it is the shameless and (should
> >> be) embar
>
> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg45167.html is
> about volume.
>
> for me, it's not the volume, per se. it is the shameless and (should
> be) embarrassing self-promotion, the copying and reposting of others'
> ideas and work, ... and it's not only gadi, but he makes suc
>
> >> there's Full Disclosure (another place where I have Gadi kill filed),
> > Are you sure this isn't your own personal issue?
>
> yes
>
>
I've got him killfiled too.
How about something like this? Seems to have had a positive
effect on the IETF list.
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/w
Dear Colleagues:
I think it turned out pretty good. I have to be somewhere else
during this NANOG so I won't be able to make it, but I would
not be complaining about the agenda of $450 registration.
- a real keynote!
- v6 and v4 balance
- no panels
- real operational issue (taiwan)
Nice work.
>
>
> On 5-Jan-2007, at 18:18, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
> > I can understand the difficulties in maintaining minutes for
> > official meetings of the Committees, and I can also understand
> > that there is time required to process the minutes and get
> >
>
>
> On 5-Jan-2007, at 18:18, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
> > I can understand the difficulties in maintaining minutes for
> > official meetings of the Committees, and I can also understand
> > that there is time required to process the minutes and get
> >
would
be a *little* obsessive, but if we can't get some "stable"
minutes, it would not be unreasonable.
Requiring an accurate, believable, accountable, open,
and official record is not a lot to ask for. Can someone
make this happen? Merit? Please?
Best Regards,
Martin Hannigan
Draft was posted:
http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0702/topics.html
-M<
>
>
> On 4-Dec-2006, at 17:39, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
> > If you agree that cutting cost is a secondary component to fixing
> > the root cause, why not start with the root cause?
>
> The SC felt that fixing the immediate symptom (that costs exceed
>
>
> On 12/4/06, Martin Hannigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ snip ]
> 1) Provide a mechanism for vendors to send to NANOG a box of schwag
> (Tshirts, USB memsticks, USB disks loaded with freeware, product
> literature, whatever). This might provide a subtle enticement to
>
> (forgive my top of post email)
>
>
> people will not attend Nanog when the cost goes up? What if the cost
> goes down, would more people attend which would reduce the need to
> reduce costs?
Reducing costs is good, but some of those reductions are going
to end up in effort worth a lot less
>
> Forget what I said about Vegas. I was looking at it from a cost
> perspective.
>
> One item of note, the cost to attend the conference is the same no
> matter where the venue. I am sure some venues are less expensive than
> others. Maybe pricing should be based on the location.
>
> There ha
>
> and this relates to ripe.
>
> AMS was USD$234 for a single with breakfast.
> IST was a more affordable $162.5.
>
> AMS in any case, given current exchange rates, is *considerably* more
> expensive than any recent nanog.
>
> t.
>
Randy Whitneys point is well taken, but my interpretation wa
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Martin Hannigan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 1:28 PM
> > To: Randy Whitney
> > Cc: 'Joe Abley'; 'Martin Hannigan'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: Incre
>
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 01:27:57PM -0500, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> > >
> > > FWIW, with the increase to $450, the ~$500 it costs to attend RIPE
> > > for five days, incl. breakfast/lunch, seems like a much better
> > > value. It would not surpr
>
> FWIW, with the increase to $450, the ~$500 it costs to attend RIPE
> for five days, incl. breakfast/lunch, seems like a much better
> value. It would not surprise me to see a further drop in attendance
> from people doing the same calculation. IMHO, $400 would have been
> a more reasonable in
>
> Hey Marty,
>
> On 30-Nov-2006, at 11:30, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
[ snip ]
> > (e) I think you should raise sponsorship fees with attendance fees.
> > The pressure is on to add value since NANOG is no longer a
> > bargain, but it certainly isn'
>
> [sent to nanog-futures@, bcc'ing nanog-announce@, apologies for
> duplicates]
>
> During the past several community meetings, Merit have presented
> accounts for NANOG which show that revenue from membership fees and
> sponsorship are not sufficient to cover costs, despite substantial
rent charter on www.nanog.org is missing this
sentence.
That's an error that needs to be fixed. It was part of the amended
text as voted on last week.)
Steve
That's what the reference for 16 was from. Thanks.
-M<
--
Martin Hannigan(c) 617-
At 04:01 PM 10/18/2006, Joe Provo wrote:
On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 03:41:53PM -0400, Martin Hannigan wrote:
[snip]
> Here are some facts:
I think you mispelled 'vague handwavey opinions'.
>BTW: Aren't we only supposed to have 16?
16 from the community and 1 Merit appointee.
x27;d suggest that pigeonholing PC members
might not the best thing to do.
Here are some facts:
PC Members
Technical=11
operators: 5
dns: 1
asp: 2
cdn: 1
oth: 3
Administrative=1
Marketing=3
Educational=2
Total: 17
BTW: Aren't we only suppos
and machine outside of Merit? Is there some
benefit to having the PC domain separated from NANOG.ORG?
14 it-pao.woodynet.net (204.61.209.225) 86.305 ms 89.700 ms 86.748 ms
15 sfo-pao.woodynet.net (204.61.209.121) 89.218 ms 90.141 ms 89.772 ms
16 www.nanogpc.org (204.61.208.235) 85.884 ms 85.780 ms
At 08:38 AM 10/17/2006, Pete Templin wrote:
>> People who volunteer to fill roles in an organization
>> need to be shielded from attempts to micromanage them
>> or else they will cease to volunteer.
>>
Martin Hannigan wrote:
And people who fail to set expectations for
expect to fail.
-M<
--
Martin Hannigan(c) 617-388-2663
Renesys Corporation(w) 617-395-8574
Member of Technical Staff Network Operations
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 02:59 PM 10/16/2006, Joe Abley wrote:
On 16-Oct-2006, at 14:23, Martin Hannigan wrote:
We shouldn't sit here and define the metrics to measure
the PC or the MLC, but we should provide some feedback and they
should do the metrics to measure themselves. The MLC has that and we
bark over
PC submit themselves to the same thing,
in some relatively similiar detail, but applicable to the way they
do things?
I submitted some feedback to both the SC and PC and I applaud
Dan Golding for "getting it".
-M<
--
Martin Hannigan(c) 617-388-2
At 08:22 AM 10/16/2006, Ren Provo wrote:
On 10/16/06, Martin Hannigan
<<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So? You're making the PC sound like a cumbersome provisioning
> operation - which is why I'm suggesting "showing us" somethin
stions. You can either
accept them in context and come up with alternatives, and if they
are not workable at all, try to explain why they aren't, or ignore
suggestions completely as in the past.
Best,
-M<
--
Martin Hannigan(c) 617-388-2663
Renes
At 09:04 PM 10/15/2006, Daniel Golding wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of Martin Hannigan
[snip]
> I'll focus back on suggestions.
>
> From the SC, PC, and MLC, I'd suggest this year:
>
&
At 05:04 AM 10/15/2006, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Oct 14, 2006, at 6:05 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
The concept was created due to the inadequacy of the mailing list.
Either
people are ecstatic over it's operation or, apathy is rampant. If only
the happy-smiley-bowling people are going
x27;m in favor of having
the election not happen during a meeting, period, since that will
underscore the fact that eligibility is not limited to those
physically present. Longer voting windows = good.
True, true. I'm not sure that length matters, unless it's in summer
or Hollywood.
nonymous when reported. There is a fear of
business repercussion related to commenting 'not in support of..'
behind the scenes and we should find ways to support those
opinions.
Post the "who voted" list so we can see for ourselves what
interests are represented.
-M&l
At 06:35 PM 10/14/2006, Randy Bush wrote:
great. reconcile this with your previous point.
The point was made with the Daly reference to the process.
-M<
--
Martin Hannigan(c) 617-388-2663
Renesys Corporation(w) 617-395-8
At 06:19 PM 10/14/2006, Martin Hannigan wrote:
I noticed that Montreal is already posted. Congratulations Merit and
everyone. That is a precedent worth noting.
Toronto. I typed in Toronto and the list changed it to Montreal. :-)
-M<
--
Martin Hanni
sted. Congratulations Merit and
everyone. That is a precedent worth noting.
-M<
--
Martin Hannigan(c) 617-388-2663
Renesys Corporation(w) 617-395-8574
Member of Technical Staff Network Operations
At 05:41 PM 10/14/2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 05:31:52PM -0400, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
> What was a worse act was that only 100 some odd people out of 2200?
> eligible voters
> chose to even bother to vote, and some of them didn't vote for the
&g
ns instead.
In retrospect, we made a mistake. We should have voted in the MLC and
left everything
else alone. Perhaps we should propose to adjust this in the next meeting?
-M<
--
Martin Hannigan(c) 617-388-2663
Renesys Corporation
79 matches
Mail list logo
