Re: [Nanog-futures] Admission for Committee Members

On 9/30/11 11:08 , Lynda wrote: > On 9/30/2011 11:00 AM, Steve Gibbard wrote: > >> 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 is >> because everybody really wants to vote for us, but the most I can >> rea

Re: [Nanog-futures] Admission for Committee Members

sorry it's been a long time since this thread started, I'm circling back to it. On 9/1/11 15:12 , David Temkin wrote: > Randy, > > How is that "getting paid"? Receiving services in kind? > > Don't know if you've ever done Habitat for Humanity, but you get a free > lunch, paid for by those who h

Re: [Nanog-futures] an alternate proposal for NewNOG ’s membership structure

Satisfies all of my criticism with the previously proposed membership structure. joel On 12/16/10 5:31 PM, Steve Feldman wrote: > In order to jump-start the process of defining a membership structure > for NewNOG, I wrote an alternative proposal. My goals were to keep it > as simple and shor

Re: [Nanog-futures] New Membership-WG Draft

On 10/27/10 1:21 PM, Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote: > +1 I don't think we have the resources as a volunteer/community-led > organization to vet every new member, a la the IEEE. The community is > completely open now and it's been successful. I don't see why we > wouldn't have that same inclusiv

Re: [Nanog-futures] New Membership-WG Draft

And doing so, (strongly encouraging them) has nothing to do with a membership class called student. In fact it doesn't have anything to do with membership, it has to do with exposure, attendance and validation. Any number of us who became involved with NANOG, as students did so because we had s

Re: [Nanog-futures] Memberships, Bylaws and other election matters

On 10/4/10 12:13 PM, Steve Feldman wrote: > On Oct 4, 2010, at 11:54 AM, Ren Provo wrote: > >> Hi Steve, >> >> I appreciate your input here. It was clearly stated yesterday that >> several folks do not want a fellows membership class but I do not >> recall the reasoning other than Joel's comment

Re: [Nanog-futures] Final bylaws proposal

I've stated it before I think, I have no problem with student's being member's or having a discounted rate. New blood in the community should be encouraged and celebrated, and if they wish to participate in the the governance, so much the better. They should however simply be "members" regardless

Re: [Nanog-futures] Final bylaws proposal

On 10/1/10 10:44 PM, Daniel Golding wrote: > That was the whole point of student membership - to provide a discount. > $100 is very pricey for almost all students. I have no problem with some member's paying less than others I have a problem with the idea that some members are "student members" so

Re: [Nanog-futures] Final bylaws proposal

On 10/1/10 10:19 PM, Randy Bush wrote: >> you forgot honorary troll, distinguished troll and fellow troll. > > my only excuse is tough night in the rack. and zita-san says redheads > should get a class by themselves (sorry, ren). > >> my comment from 9/22 that at most there should be two members

Re: [Nanog-futures] Final bylaws proposal

On 10/1/10 9:46 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > i started to read the bylaws draft, hit the 42 flavors of membership, > and decided to drop this note and do something more useful with my time. > > it left out gold and platinum members, 100 meeting members, extra > legroom members, and dismembers. why the

Re: [Nanog-futures] Proposed bylaws for NewNOG

I didn't get the chance to cruise through this as quickly as I wanted but I'll weigh in on at least part of it... Despite my status as a sapphire-button mandarin in the current nanog cabal I am not in general in favor of membership tiers or classifications. If membership is required and I'm ok wi

Re: [Nanog-futures] Moving Forward - What kind of NANOG do we want?

On 2010-07-03 13:08, Andy Davidson wrote: > > On 3 Jul 2010, at 04:29, Simon Lyall wrote: > >> Unless people serious intended for the organisation to have regular [1] >> meetings outside of North America (which I doubt) > > No, don't. The rest of the world already has $regionNOG. If Nanog becaome

Re: [Nanog-futures] Transition update

Um insofar as I'm aware Andy Rosenzweig is still the Marit member on the SC, I generally assume that we he states his opinion or merit's position that he is doing so in his capacity as merit's representative on the SC. joel On 2010-06-02 15:20, Pete Templin wrote: > Jay Hennigan wrote: >> On 6/

Re: [Nanog-futures] Transition update

Having served my maximum 4 years on the PC, I would characterize my own experience with interaction between the respective parties SC PC and merit as congruent with that of Dan's. I would observe that over my now 13 year involvement with nanog that the community revolt that produced the SC was

Re: [Nanog-futures] Updates to the MLC warning process

I think the new text for (4) fails to capture the message of the previous (4) text. If it was intended as an addition it has significantly different meaning than if it replaces the existing text. kris foster wrote: > Hi everyone > > The MLC will be modifying the warning process to better reflect

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

Jo Rhett wrote: > On Apr 30, 2009, at 8:45 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: >> dnsbl shuts down and starts responding with affirmative responses to all >> queries, on topic. > > > On topic for who? Show me how to configure my router to use a dnsbl. > > It's on to

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

Simon Lyall wrote: > On Thu, 30 Apr 2009, Martin Hannigan wrote: >> Not such a great idea. A down search engine is an operational problem >> whether its application or network. It makes lots of phones ring and >> finger pointing at our networks. This costs us money. Same for major >> mail produc

Re: [Nanog-futures] Conference Network Experiment policy

Best, > > Marty > > On 4/9/09, Joel Jaeggli wrote: >> >> Martin Hannigan wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Joe Provo >> <mailto:nanog-...@rsuc.gweep.net>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks for

Re: [Nanog-futures] Conference Network Experiment policy

Martin Hannigan wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Joe Provo > wrote: > > > > Thanks for the feedback - please do keep it coming! We'll pop out > an updated draft to reflect the concensus when some equilibrium is > reached, but just to

Re: [Nanog-futures] Conference Network Experiment policy

I think I'd support them more if the document were a statement of principles rather than a set of rules. I don't think it's necessary to impose so formal a structure on the process unless the SC believes that good judgment is a less effective cover than process. Secondly the document assumes that

Re: [Nanog-futures] Bhutan discovers the "NANOG Problem"...

Koch, Christian wrote: > 43 was my first nanog - needless to say, majority of the people > attending were on laptops not paying attention to the presenter. > > We all have jobs, but if you can't leave your job for a few days w/o > needing to be in front of your computer doing _something_ , send

Re: [Nanog-futures] [NANOG] Microsoft.com PMTUD black hole?

Joe Abley wrote: > (ripped from the main list) thankfully > On 8 May 2008, at 12:27, Blaine Christian wrote: > >> BOSD Network Engineer231413 > > Am I the only one who read that as "BSOD" the first time? :-) No you weren't I also read job posting on nanog as being in fairly po

Re: [Nanog-futures] Mailing list procedures for review by the NANOG community

Martin Hannigan wrote: > Folks, I'm seeking some commentary on the following document that may > help us to make incremental improvements in the operation of the > mailing list. > > http://www.fugawi.net/~hannigan/nanog-mlcp1-1.pdf > > Please reply here or privately. Yeah, I object to the ad

Re: [Nanog-futures] Countdown Timer

Martin Hannigan wrote: > Thanks. The idea is to have a consistent, repeatable, staff run system > that is able to be used from the media station in the back of the room > independent of the PC. It's not their job to run the sound boards and > we pay for this service as part of the administration fe

Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?

Martin Hannigan wrote: >> >> It's distracting when the speaker >> >> gets verbal time warnings(not anyones fault, it just is). Time ticks are >> >> needed, but there's a better way to do it, methinks. >> > > > [ clip ] > >> When I mc part of the program, I have a powerpoint slide deck with 1

Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?

Richard A Steenbergen wrote: >> We might also want to invest in a timer that moves from green/yellow/red >> based on the alloted time. I noticed that some people were held to a >> rock solid standard, others weren't. It's distracting when the speaker >> gets verbal time warnings(not anyones fa

Re: [Nanog-futures] Question about "permanent bans"

Martin Hannigan wrote: > > I'm not proposing that Dean come back. He's incorrigable. We need to > provide a method to allow for what we've done and to allow the SC to > do what they do. House cleaning. In the procedures doc that I am about > to post after I get initial thoughts on a few nagging qu

Re: [Nanog-futures] Question about "permanent bans"

Stephen Wilcox wrote: >> Assign right of review to the sc without guidelines as to when or how >> review might occur. > > yes altho i would make sure that review occurs periodically.. these > things are highly unusual (1 person in all these years) so i don't > think it hurts to keep things in

Re: [Nanog-futures] Question about "permanent bans"

Martin Hannigan wrote: > Do folks think that we ought to do a charter amendment to allow for > permanent bans? That seems like a huge issue and that we may want to > get an up or down vote. The way we would address it is either adding > it as a "power" of the MLC, or even the SC -- then right a non

Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?

William Norton wrote: > To me, the nanog-futures discussion is, how should/did this Steering > Committee/Program Committee apparatus, respond to complaints that > result from these failures? > > If there is to be a change to this very successful part of NANOG, is > it because it has become a

Re: [Nanog-futures] level of fail [was: The Peering BOF and the Fallout?]

Joe Abley wrote: > On 26-Feb-2008, at 08:57, Todd Underwood wrote: > >> hrm. just a quick reality check. that reason is now stated :-) and >> you *didn't* attend this past nanog when it was <10 miles away from >> where you live. right? > > Hey, I thought we were all about counting remote atten

Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?

Chris Malayter wrote: > Hey Joe, > > 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 information you're looking for. What you liked

Re: [Nanog-futures] [admin] Re: EU Official: IP Is Personal

rks about as well as we envisioned when we fomented revolution. > > > > > On 1/26/08, Joel Jaeggli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Randy Bush wrote: >>> Martin Hannigan wrote: >>>> Folks, we'd like to ask that this thread die a quick and pai

Re: [Nanog-futures] [admin] Re: EU Official: IP Is Personal

Randy Bush wrote: > Martin Hannigan wrote: >> Folks, we'd like to ask that this thread die a quick and painful >> death. It's gone off topic and it seems to have run whatever short >> course that it tried. While what Europe does is interesting to us as >> network operators, this is European policy

Re: [Nanog-futures] Cisco outage

Martin Hannigan wrote: > Not for the content. Randy is a little excitable since he and the SC > have been marginalized for the most part. AUP Item #8 seems to apply. > I'm asking if it's what people really want. I'm prepared to pull the cord on the suicde belt in hopes that I can take the current

Re: AUP modification - full first and last names

Alex Pilosov wrote: > On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Cat Okita wrote: > >> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Alex Pilosov wrote: >>> MLC suggests to change the AUP to: >>> >>> 7. Postings to the list must be made using real, identifiable first and >>> last names, rather than aliases. >>> >>> I'd like community feedback

Re: AUP modification - full first and last names

Alex Pilosov wrote: > Currently, NANOG AUP states: > > 7. Postings to the list must be made using real, identifiable names and > addresses, rather than aliases. > > Occasionally, posters don't put in their full names (using either only > first name or last name) and get a nice email from mlc ask

Re: AUP/autoresponders, rehashed

Martin Hannigan wrote: > On 6/12/07, Joel Jaeggli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> > Awhile ago, we've had proposal to formally forbid autoresponders. The >> > proposed language was to add following to AUP: >> > >> >

Re: AUP/autoresponders, rehashed

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Awhile ago, we've had proposal to formally forbid autoresponders. The > proposed language was to add following to AUP: > >8. Challenge/response sender whitelisting software which requires > interaction by any party to validate a post to the NANOG mailing list as >

Re: AUP enforcement, cont'd

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Well, as I was about to give someone a warning for not following the > request to kill the thread about NAT, I have realized that, technically, > it is not a violation of AUP, so warning would be inappropriate. > > The post was not in violation of any other AUP rules - h

Re: Broadband routers and botnets - being proactive - I'll make this relevant I swear.

Joe Greco wrote: > > I find it sadly ironic that the netops community, which largely runs huge > commercial for-profit networks, would think that others would handle the > security aspects for them - and do it for free. > What's pathetic is that these same large networks usually can't be bothered

Re: Broadband routers and botnets - being proactive

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Addressing the complaint that my response to Gadi was too harsh, I can >> only say >> that, to someone who isn't aware of the history, my response may seem >> harsh, > > I *AM* aware of the history and your response seems harsh. Especially so > because you complained a