On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 04:53:52PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > What
> > does the review of the PC hope to accomplish, anyways?
>
> Make sure it is not a marketing presentation or sales pitch.
> Make sure that slides are reasonably clear and understandable.
> Make sure that the topic h
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What does the review of the PC hope to accomplish, anyways?
Make sure it is not a marketing presentation or sales pitch.
Make sure that slides are reasonably clear and understandable.
Make sure that the topic has not been thrashed to death.
Make sure that the topic is r
> What
> does the review of the PC hope to accomplish, anyways?
Make sure it is not a marketing presentation or sales pitch.
Make sure that slides are reasonably clear and understandable.
Make sure that the topic has not been thrashed to death.
Make sure that the topic is relevant to network op
William B. Norton wrote:
2) people tend to specialize; they may be perfect to provide
insightful data into a discussion on Network Planning, but not
understand the Security futures issues enough to rank a slide deck.
This is the reality of the situation and some PC members have dealt
with that b
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007, Steve Gibbard wrote:
So, in that vein, it seems to me that that the vagueness in the Program
Committee member-removal text is ok. The Steering Committee is in charge,
and if there's a desire to remove a member of the Program Committee, the
procedure ought to be whatever t
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 o
On Sep 27, 2007, at 2:56 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In any case, I would think the committee should be able to remove its
own members by voting them out for cause. If the cause is in the
bylaws,
then the process doesn't need to be there in every detail. And if a
c
> The original intent seems to have been to provide a mandatory
> participation bar, which would explain why it is coupled with the
> 'meet too many meetings and you're out' portion.
i believe all this is because, in the past, there was a problem with
deadwood on the pc. i think the attempt to rel
On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 02:22:10PM -0700, William B. Norton wrote:
[snip]
> I think the PC has a simple (but not necessarily easy) charge:
> put together the content/agenda for NANOG. A charter doesn't
> need to specify the how.
I agree that micromanagement of the PC is a bad thing. The
original
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007, Martin Hannigan wrote:
The issue that arises from it is that there ought to be a requirement
that if you are going to make a proposal, claim that you have support,
etc. that we have names instead of broad statements like the one
above.
To clarify, the NANOG Charter says th
Hello All:
My comments are in line below.
Regards,
Mike
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-nanog-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe Abley
> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 1:14 PM
> To: nanog-futures Futures
> Subject: proposed NANOG
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>by whom? pc chair? sc (which appointed them)? michael
dillon?
I think michael dillon is a fine choice.
Vijay, it is rude to make fun of people who are showing their senility.
Stop picking on Randy.
In any case, I would think th
> Each member of the Program Committee must review all
> presentations submitted for each meeting.
It doesn't say in what detail they must review it. Seems to be a good
idea for every member to give every presentation a cursory review. Also
seems to be a good idea for the committee to have d
> > by whom? pc chair? sc (which appointed them)? michael
dillon?
> I think michael dillon is a fine choice.
Vijay, it is rude to make fun of people who are showing their senility.
Stop picking on Randy.
In any case, I would think the committee should be able to re
> The issue that arises from it is that there ought to be a requirement
> that if you are going to make a proposal, claim that you have support,
> etc. that we have names instead of broad statements like the one
> above.
not sure i have what you're getting at, not even sure which of the two
propos
On 9/27/07, Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Openness and transparency is what I hope to achieve by having this
> > conversation here. I'm not withholding answers; I'm just not
> > understanding the question :-)
>
> perhaps we need a charter amendment that says there will always be
> someo
> Openness and transparency is what I hope to achieve by having this
> conversation here. I'm not withholding answers; I'm just not
> understanding the question :-)
perhaps we need a charter amendment that says there will always be
someone to blame. the actual problem/proposal itself is uninterest
On 27-Sep-2007, at 1719, Martin Hannigan wrote:
On 9/27/07, Joe Abley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 27-Sep-2007, at 1716, Martin Hannigan wrote:
The authors of these things should be identified in case we want to
vote them out of whatever they were voted into.
Could you be more specific?
On 9/27/07, Joe Abley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It has also been suggested (as you allude) that this level of detail
> is unnecessary micromanagement, and that a better approach is just to
> strike the whole paragraph, and leave the PC to organise themselves
> as they see fit.
>
> Opinions from
On 9/27/07, Joe Abley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 27-Sep-2007, at 1716, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
> > The authors of these things should be identified in case we want to
> > vote them out of whatever they were voted into.
>
> Could you be more specific? I'm not sure what "these things" means,
>> It has also been suggested (as you allude) that this level of detail
>> is unnecessary micromanagement, and that a better approach is just to
>> strike the whole paragraph, and leave the PC to organise themselves
>> as they see fit.
> The authors of these things should be identified in case we w
On 27-Sep-2007, at 1716, Martin Hannigan wrote:
The authors of these things should be identified in case we want to
vote them out of whatever they were voted into.
Could you be more specific? I'm not sure what "these things" means,
in this context.
Joe
On 9/27/07, Joe Abley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 27-Sep-2007, at 1618, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> > if we need this level of detail, then
>
> Thanks, Randy.
>
> It has also been suggested (as you allude) that this level of detail
> is unnecessary micromanagement, and that a better approach is jus
On 9/27/07, Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> if we need this level of detail, then
>
> > New version: "Each member of the Program Committee must review all
> > presentations submitted for each meeting and rate those presentations
> > which fall into their areas of expertise. The Chair may
On 27-Sep-2007, at 1618, Randy Bush wrote:
if we need this level of detail, then
Thanks, Randy.
It has also been suggested (as you allude) that this level of detail
is unnecessary micromanagement, and that a better approach is just to
strike the whole paragraph, and leave the PC to organ
if we need this level of detail, then
> New version: "Each member of the Program Committee must review all
> presentations submitted for each meeting and rate those presentations
> which fall into their areas of expertise. The Chair may excuse a
^
and for
Hi all,
The NANOG SC is considering two proposals to modify the NANOG
charter. The SC would like to hear feedback from the community on
these, to help us form the precise text that will appear on the
ballot for people to vote on in New Mexico.
The following were kindly collated and drafte
27 matches
Mail list logo
