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
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
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
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
http://xkcd.com/386/
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
13 matches
Mail list logo
