I did swing by Radio Shack. It can be done, but then I
thought about it and the professional queue system was
$1500. I think that Merit should make an investment in it to
improve the conference and speaking experience. It would be
well worth it in terms of making things run smoother.
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 2:06 AM, Steve Feldman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 27, 2008, at 8:51 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 11:23 PM, Ren Provo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
We consider the surveys, in addition to mailing list and hallway
discussions.
I
Martin Hannigan wrote:
Let me rephrase. I'm always skeptical when I hear terms like a lot of
people told us... or everyone feels like or there's support for
xyz.
Who feels like that? Who supports xyz? Who told us? One PC member just
put someone into context so I think it's fair to make
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Pete Templin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin Hannigan wrote:
Let me rephrase. I'm always skeptical when I hear terms like a lot of
people told us... or everyone feels like or there's support for
xyz.
Who feels like that? Who supports xyz? Who told
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 09:48:30AM -0500, Martin Hannigan wrote:
The lightning talk expansion is great. The format is ok. I think
that we should expand the time for lightning talks to include a 10
minute Q/A period at the end of the period instead of trying to cram
questions into the end of
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 fault, it
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.
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 10 5
and 1 minute markers which I place in
-Original Message-
From: Martin Hannigan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 11:36 AM
To: Joel Jaeggli
Cc: nanog-futures
Subject: Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?
It's distracting when the speaker
gets verbal time warnings
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 10 5
and 1 minute
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 3:05 PM, Joel Jaeggli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin Hannigan wrote:
[ clip ]
The point is that something non obtrusive would be better. The soft
lighting of cue lights seems less intrusive, but they sure are damn
expensive. I think I'll swing by Radio Shack
On Feb 25, 2008, at 6:39 PM, Philip Smith wrote:
:
I should mention, as an FYI, that both Peering and Security BoFs have
been integral part of APRICOT for some time. Apart from the plenary
session, APRICOT has parallel tracks (we call them streams). The
organisers of both tracks taking
Hallway discussions this past week in San Jose suggest some would
like to see a more diverse selection of topics at the very least.
Bill was asked on Wednesday not to make commitments until we, the
NANOG PC, are able to review feedback and perhaps expand the cramped
format into a track.
Leave it
Joel spewed:
I think it would be remiss of the pc to not review the status of
program elements. That would be an abrogation of the responsibility
invested the pc by the charter.
Further I believe that PC review of a popular and successful program
element would be with the goal of helping it
--- On Wed, 2/27/08, Martin Hannigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Further I believe that PC review of a popular and
successful program
element would be with the goal of helping it grow.
Can we see the procedure that you're going to make up
to do this first?
I'm not sure that pre-defining
We consider the surveys, in addition to mailing list and hallway
discussions.
A rough cut from SJC was made available during the NANOG PC call this week
but should be posted soon for NANOG42.
Previous survey material -
http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0710/surveyresults.html
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 11:23 PM, Ren Provo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We consider the surveys, in addition to mailing list and hallway
discussions.
I agree with the first two, but not the last. That's the clubby part.
-M
___
Nanog-futures mailing
On Feb 27, 2008, at 8:51 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 11:23 PM, Ren Provo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
We consider the surveys, in addition to mailing list and hallway
discussions.
I agree with the first two, but not the last. That's the clubby part.
I disagree with
Hi Patrick,
Patrick W. Gilmore said the following on 25/2/08 11:00:
Let's stop dancing around the issue. There was discussion regarding
the Peering BoF amongst the SC PC. There is no reason to hide this
fact - just the opposite. And there were at least some provisional
outcomes
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 system.
I would like to know what's the deal and would like
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 track bases system.
I would like to know
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
thanks mr murdoch.
No problem Mr Hyde
rumors of the bof's or bill's death are probably a bit exaggerated.
Was just trying to get some transparency as to what was going on with it.
randy
Chris
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
http://xkcd.com/386/
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
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
Hey Joe,
Would you ask the PC to release the minutes from the SJC nanog and any
meeting since.
Thanks,
-Chris
On Sun, 24 Feb 2008, Joe Provo wrote:
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
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 track
Hi Richard,
Richard A Steenbergen said the following on 25/2/08 08:21:
Making a special exemption for Bill
Norton (a member of the SC, which elects the PC) could easily give the
impression of undue favoritism to the outside world, and defeat all of the
work that has been put into
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 09:28:06AM +1000, Philip Smith wrote:
Richard A Steenbergen said the following on 25/2/08 08:21:
Making a special exemption for Bill
Norton (a member of the SC, which elects the PC) could easily give the
impression of undue favoritism to the outside world, and
On Feb 24, 2008, at 12:57 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
Chris Malayter wrote:
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
On behalf of the NANOG PC:
Nothing has been submitted in the NANOG tool and nothing has been declined.
The survey results from NANOG42 this week have not been made available to
the PC yet.
We would like to review community feedback on this topic.
Hallway discussions this past week in San Jose
31 matches
Mail list logo
