On Tuesday, June 14, 2016, Patrick W. Gilmore <patr...@ianai.net> wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2016, at 11:50 AM, Hugo Slabbert <h...@slabnet.com > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > On Tue 2016-Jun-14 10:12:10 -0500, Matt Peterson <m...@peterson.org > <javascript:;>> 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 mentioned (say in the case of a unpublished vulnerability) - how is a 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. > > Harassment policy is a good idea https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/ietf-anti-harassment-policy.html Walking on eggshells because sponsors don't appreciate the message and find posting pictures of their dance parties while discussing non-profit financials is ... Or is that a different subtweet? We are talking about dnssec? To that end, let a million flowers bloom. It was a good relevant talk. Regards, C&J -- > TTFN, > patrick > > >