On Jun 14, 2016, at 11:50 AM, Hugo Slabbert <h...@slabnet.com> wrote: > On Tue 2016-Jun-14 10:12:10 -0500, Matt Peterson <m...@peterson.org> wrote: > >> This week at NANOG67, a presentation was given early on that did not >> reflect well for our community at large. Regardless of the content or >> accuracy of the data presented (not the intention of this thread), specific >> members of the community (some of which are sponsors) were clearly targeted >> in a hurtful manner. The delivery of the content did not seem within the >> spirit of NANOG, but instead a personal opinion piece. While no specific >> rules of the speaking guidelines >> <https://www.nanog.org/meetings/presentation/guidelines> were likely >> broken, this does bring up a point of where the acceptable threshold exists >> (if at all). To be abundantly clear - I have nothing against the content >> itself, the presenter, the PC's choice of allowing this talk, etc. - I only >> wish to clarify if our guidelines need modernization. >> >> As a community, how do we provide constructive criticism to industry >> suppliers (that may also be fellow competitors, members, and/or suppliers)? >> For example, router vendors are routinely compared without specific names >> mentioned (say in the case of a unpublished vulnerability) - how is a >> service provider any different? > > I understand the discretion involved in your question, but could we clarify > exactly what presentation is being discussed so those of us who were not > present at NANOG67 can also participate in an informed way?
I personally think the meta-question Matt asked is more important than opinions on a specific presentation. Plus I worry about devolving into a “that was a good preso” / “no it wasn’t!!” flamefest. -- TTFN, patrick
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
