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?
On 10/8/07, Paul Ferguson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
For instance: I made an offer a few weeks back to give a presentation
on what ISPs could to do to help in fighting cyber crime. I was told
that I need to follow this procedure and submit a proposal, etc.,
which is fine - I suppose. But it
On 9 Oct 2007, at 16:57, William B. Norton wrote:
On 10/8/07, Paul Ferguson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
For instance: I made an offer a few weeks back to give a presentation
on what ISPs could to do to help in fighting cyber crime. I was told
that I need to follow this procedure and submit
On 10/9/07, Stephen Wilcox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
There is a charter amendment on the upcoming election to strike that text
so the PC will have the ability to self manage their process of recruiting
and selecting talks and speakers.
One can envision for example a variety of program
On 9-Oct-2007, at 1206, 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 think the charter gives the PC lots of
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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I realized after I sent that message that it was unfair of me
to make statements without properly characterizing them with
context.
Let me say this: I believe NANOG has very much lost touch with the
base of it's constituency.
For instance: I made an
