On Tue, Feb 26, 2008, Christian Nielsen wrote:
> >From personal experience, it is easier to attend Nanog 1000 miles away than
> >10 miles away. Work/Family pull me away when close to home.
I think Perth, Western Australia is about as far from anywhere else in
the Western World you can get. I'd be
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 26-Feb-2008, at 15:53, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>> Hey, I thought we were all about counting remote attendees as real
>> people? :-)
>
> It's slightly harder with bofs that aren't broadcast or recorded.
Oh, true. :-)
--
On 26-Feb-2008, at 15:53, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> 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,
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
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 attendees as real
people? :-)
Nanog Futures
Subject: Re: [Nanog-futures] level of fail [was: The Peering BOF and the
Fallout?]
vijay,
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 08:08:54PM -0800, vijay gill wrote:
>
>The peering bof is a great medium for facilitating intercommunication in a
>semi structured environment, i
vijay,
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 08:08:54PM -0800, vijay gill wrote:
>
>The peering bof is a great medium for facilitating intercommunication in a
>semi structured environment, interactivity is high, and frankly, the
>peering bof is one of the large unstated reason I come to NANOG
> at
--- On Tue, 2/26/08, vijay gill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Removing the BOF and or turning it into some sort
> of overtly structured
> > > environment would make it boring and not as
> useful, which is bad.
> >
> >
> > then i suggest you not do it!
>
>
>
> I am very against any such a
vijay gill wrote:
> On 2/25/08, Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Removing the BOF and or turning it into some sort of overtly structured
>>> environment would make it boring and not as useful, which is bad.
>> then i suggest you not do it!
> I am very against any such action. I wish to sta
On 2/25/08, Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Removing the BOF and or turning it into some sort of overtly structured
> > environment would make it boring and not as useful, which is bad.
>
>
> then i suggest you not do it!
I am very against any such action. I wish to state for the rec
> Removing the BOF and or turning it into some sort of overtly structured
> environment would make it boring and not as useful, which is bad.
then i suggest you not do it!
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/m
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 reaso
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, not only should it
> continue, the hours should be exp
13 matches
Mail list logo
