, but I think the current
language was the result of much negotiation five years ago when it was
negotiated.
Does anybody else have a strong desire to change that?
Thanks,
Steve
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010, Steve Feldman wrote:
The NewNOG governance working group, chaired by Steve Gibbard, has
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
. Dan appears to have cut that
discussion off with this:
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 19:03:56 -0500
From: Daniel Golding dgold...@burtongroup.com
To: Adam Rothschild a...@latency.net, Steve Gibbard
s...@stevegibbard.com
Cc: nanog-ref...@nac.net
Subject: Re: [nanog-reform] Issues to address
that members of the Steering Committee were asking there, I don't think
they rushed into at least the beginning of this process.
-Steve
--
Steve Gibbard
s...@gibbard.org
+1 415 717-7842 (cell)
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
On Thu, 15 Apr 2010, vijay gill wrote:
I have been to a few and I read the notes. Still not quite sure what
problem this is hoping to solve.
As I said, I wasn't privvy to most of the discussions surrounding this. I
don't really know what's being proposed, or what's transpired between the
I'm wondering if there's any more information available about the efforts
to separate NANOG from Merit (as announced by Steve Feldman this morning
in mail to the main NANOG list).
It sounds like there's already an effort to incorporate an organization.
What sort of staff and budget is it
I'd like to thank the people at Merit and on the various NANOG committees
for putting on what was for the most part another great NANOG meeting.
However, for those of us with sensitive resperatory systems, the bar and
lobby, where much of the important stuff at NANOG happens, were really
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Philip Smith wrote:
Hello everyone,
Please take a moment to look at the current charter amendment proposals
for the October ballot at:
http://www.nanog.org/charter/
If you have comments on the proposals, please post them on the
nanog-futures list or send them to
I've been seeing two kinds of discussion on the NANOG mailing list about
the Outages mailing list. I've seen people post asking about various
outages and be redirected to the Outages list, and I've seen outage
notifications saying that the Outages list has been down for days (or
maybe longer)
I'm sorry to be a bit contrarian here, but...
Looking at the crowd that assembles for the peering BOF, it's clearly one
of the more popular things on the NANOG program. It may not draw the raw
numbers of people that the general session does, but it does tend to pack
whatever room it's in.
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
Pete Templin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And seriously, can we stop with the if you don't like it, you must
volunteer to serve on it to effect your desired changes mantra?
Why? The people who bellyache and the people who have skin in the
game
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007, Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote:
Proposal 2:
Shall program committee members be permitted to skip rating
presentation proposals that do not fall into their areas of
expertise?
Wording:
Change the third paragraph of Section 8.3.2 as follows:
Old version: Each member
12 matches
Mail list logo
