On 7/2/10 8:29 PM, Simon Lyall wrote:
> Unless people serious intended for the organisation to have regular [1]
> meetings outside of North America (which I doubt) then it should retain
> the current general name and focus.
>
> [1] - At least 50% in Europe, Asia, ROW , not one every 5 years in M
> Unless people serious intended for the organisation to have regular [1]
> meetings outside of North America (which I doubt) then it should retain
> the current general name and focus.
why? we hove the world series! :)
hubris is not a quality we lack.
randy
_
On Fri, 2 Jul 2010, Scott Weeks wrote:
> --- j...@west.net wrote:
> group. This transition is going to be difficult enough without changing
> the fundamental purpose of the organization.
> ---
> I just meant the name. Nothing else. That's a biggie, though, as
You can have a professionally run conference without making it a
pay-for-play vendor dominated event. Its not even hard to do.
- Dan
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Jay Hennigan wrote:
> On 7/1/10 11:53 AM, Daniel Golding wrote:
>
>> The way forward is to have sharp cut-off from having
>> quasi-
adam, stop muck raking. in general, I'd advocate spending less time on
mailing lists and focusing more on delivering great product.
/vijay
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Adam Rothschild
wrote:
> I've been trying to avoid this topic, though as one of few
> participants familiar with MediaMelon'
Le vendredi 02 juillet 2010 à 14:12 -0700, Scott Weeks a écrit :
>
> --- hanni...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
> > --- s...@gibbard.org wrote:
> >
> > NANOG, or NewNOG, or whatever it ends up being called,
> > --
>
> >
I've been trying to avoid this topic, though as one of few
participants familiar with MediaMelon's account of what happened
(we've been looking at their product, independently of this all), I
feel obligated to offer my two cents...
The underlying facts are not in dispute -- Kumar from MediaMelon *
On 7/1/10 11:53 AM, Daniel Golding wrote:
> The way forward is to have sharp cut-off from having
> quasi-professional meetings and transition into having real events.
> Real events have real sponsorship models, not a few bucks for a break
> or a beer and gear. Real events are planned a year in adv
--- j...@west.net wrote:
group. This transition is going to be difficult enough without changing
the fundamental purpose of the organization.
---
I just meant the name. Nothing else. That's a biggie, though, as everyone
knows the nanog name.
scott
On 7/2/10 1:37 PM, Michael Dillon wrote:
>> The intent coming into the change was to move forward with a transition of
>> NANOG, not create a new organization with a different mandate. The NANOG
>> group mirrors similar groups in other regions and is focused primarily on
>> serving the North Ameri
--- hanni...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
> --- s...@gibbard.org wrote:
>
> NANOG, or NewNOG, or whatever it ends up being called,
> --
> Has that already been decided? It's most certainly not NA operators only.
> GNO
> The intent coming into the change was to move forward with a transition of
> NANOG, not create a new organization with a different mandate. The NANOG
> group mirrors similar groups in other regions and is focused primarily on
> serving the North American operator community,
You are wrong there.
> NANOG, or NewNOG, or whatever it ends up being called,
> --
>
> Has that already been decided? It's most certainly not NA operators only.
> GNOG? (global)
If you check out the initial bylaws at
http://www.newnog.org/docs/initialbylaws.pdf
you will see, in A
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
>
>
> --- s...@gibbard.org wrote:
>
> NANOG, or NewNOG, or whatever it ends up being called,
> --
>
>
>
> Has that already been decided? It's most certainly not NA operators only.
> GNOG? (global)
>
> scott
>
On 7/2/10 1:02 PM, "Scott Weeks" wrote:
>
>
> --- s...@gibbard.org wrote:
>
> NANOG, or NewNOG, or whatever it ends up being called,
> --
>
>
>
> Has that already been decided? It's most certainly not NA operators only.
> GNOG? (global)
>
> scott
>
--- s...@gibbard.org wrote:
NANOG, or NewNOG, or whatever it ends up being called,
--
Has that already been decided? It's most certainly not NA operators only.
GNOG? (global)
scott
On Thu, 1 Jul 2010, Daniel Golding wrote:
> The way forward is to have sharp cut-off from having
> quasi-professional meetings and transition into having real events.
> Real events have real sponsorship models, not a few bucks for a break
> or a beer and gear. Real events are planned a year in adv
Andy Davidson wrote:
> A good quality meeting 'Fringe' is a defining characteristic of a mature
> community. Let it happen. The fringe is the test-bed for stuff too crazy or
> early for the formal agenda. Promote this ad-hoc stuff on the nanog site. A
> good fringe will encourage more long-
Clearly, thats not what anyone is talking about. We are not, as a
rule, academics. We also need a funding model.
We have a wide range of folks, from technical staff to senior
management attend NANOG.
- Dan
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 6:53 PM, Sean Figgins wrote:
> On 7/1/10 2:50 PM, Randy Bush wrote
On 1 Jul 2010, at 17:59, William Norton wrote:
> 1) We started seeing folks having suite parties,
[...]
> 2) We started seeing people quietly passing out logo'd and funny t-shirts,
[...]
> 4) tours of data centers that don't sponsor NANOG but are local (we geeks
> like these things),
These are
20 matches
Mail list logo
