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
asr+nanog-futu...@latency.net wrote:
I've been trying to avoid this topic, though as one of few
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 12:00 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
nanog/sf approaches. will our illustrious leadership be sending out at
least the basics of a business plan long enough before the meeting that
we have time to treat it seriously as opposed to flying foils at the so
called
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 1:02 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
nanog/sf approaches. will our illustrious leadership be sending out
at least the basics of a business plan long enough before the meeting
that we have time to treat it seriously as opposed to flying foils at
the so called
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Steve Meuse sme...@mara.org wrote:
Randy Bush expunged (ra...@psg.com):
thanks steve. this is certainly a step forward in nanog's evolution,
and one i hope and presume will be positive. hard work for you, but
really it's mostly just business. we did it with
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 9:52 AM, Steve Meuse sme...@mara.org wrote:
vijay gill expunged (vg...@vijaygill.com):
I'll second that. I'll admit to my jaw dropping when I read the
announcement, but I think it's the direction we need to go (and maybe even
long overdue). Merit has done a great
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Steve Meuse sme...@mara.org wrote:
vijay gill expunged (vg...@vijaygill.com):
What were some specific issues.
It's not my intention to re-hash that last four years of community meetings
(maybe you some show up more frequently?) :)
I have been to a few
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 3:28 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let this be a vote for *no* on shutting off net access.
It's not really an either/or situation. There are ways to
have both, and, as we both pointed out, there are good reasons
why speakers should not assume that room full of
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 5:12 PM, Alan Clegg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mike Hughes wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, vijay gill wrote:
In short, instead of coercive action, how about the presenters learn to
be
more relevant, interesting, or fun
On 2/24/08, Patrick W. Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
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
On 12/3/07, Martin Hannigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is the second time someone from the Program Committee has posted
something that seemed to be asking for something to help our success
or informing people about standard (revenue generating even) functions
of NANOG and that they believe
11 matches
Mail list logo
