On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:00:35AM -0700, Steve Gibbard wrote:
[snip]
Here's my problem with this line of reasoning:
We've got a serious volunteer shortage.
In our upcoming board election, we have four candidates for four
open seats. As one of those candidates, I'd like to think that
this
On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 07:56:20PM -0400, Dorian Kim wrote:
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 11:30:49AM -0400, David Temkin wrote:
All,
I would like to propose an amendment to the bylaws for the coming election
cycle.
The various committees put in many tireless hours of effort to bring a
[pardon for the use of futures as meta, but no other way to be sure
it doesn't lay unattended in a filter somewheres]
From http://www.nanog.org/governance/communications/
You can reach all of us at adm...@nanog.org.
In response to message last night sent from my nanog@ list-subscribed
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 05:39:56PM -0700, Jay Hennigan wrote:
[snip]
There isn't a test, investigation, or vetting. The member decides if
they have an interest and understands the reason for membership.
If there isn't vetting, why does the board approve membership? No
other nonprofit
An interesting exercise might be to compare the cost of a vote (thus
far the only membership benefit) today and as proposed.
-Today
Students:
Max 60/yr (20 per meeting) at $50 per (minimum $100 / 2 years)
Standard:
$225 (minimum 1 meeting at $450 / 2 years)
Freebies:
SC-approved
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 09:39:51AM -0700, Steve Feldman wrote:
On Jun 14, 2010, at 9:16 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
For those interested, the NANOG Transition Plan session, scheduled
for 4:30-6:00pm Monday, will be webcast.
ahem. i presume this will not interfere with the webcasting of the
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 07:34:47PM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote:
[snip]
I would be keen to see this restriction put in-place, but unless you
are hosting the meeting and picking the venue, it may be challenging.
Until we're swimming in competing hosting offers, it may not be feasible
to
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 08:25:10AM -0700, kris foster wrote:
On May 12, 2009, at 7:32 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
On May 12, 2009, at 9:10 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
some 'action'. That action is usually like using reload as a
workaround to a hardware problem instead of replacing the buggy
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 05:46:50AM -0400, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 09:43:22PM -0700, Paul Ferguson wrote:
[snip]
In any event, I think security-related issues are much more on topic than
ARIN IPv4 policy foo.
I think I mildly disagree with this. The allocation of
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 09:32:13PM -0700, Paul Ferguson wrote:
[snip]
I don't mind gentle reminders, but non-specific gestures cloud the issue
and sometimes appear hypocritical.
I could easily name a few other threads on NANOG currently that I believe
are off-topic, so if the MLC is going to
Heya,
There have been periodic inquiries for network-based experiments
on the NANOG conference network. While there is a serious benefit
to be gained by experimenters exposing their projects to the NANOG
attendees, there is a need to balance that with meeting attendees
having a functional
On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 12:43:54PM -0700, Scott Weeks wrote:
[snip]
I agree. Great job! It even works perfectly fine with Firefox
on FreeBSD with javascript not allowed via NoScript. Impressive.
(It takes a lot to make me say that! :-)
Brian @merit did a great job taking pains to placate
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 03:15:00AM -0400, Donald Stahl wrote:
[snip]
If that's the case then might I sugggest changing the pages that discuss
what is, and what is not, apropriate for the mailing list? Those questions
were not relevant to large network operators but if that is no longer the
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
14 matches
Mail list logo
