Stephen Wilcox wrote: > > On 9 Oct 2007, at 18:39, Joel Jaeggli wrote: > >> Stephen Wilcox wrote: >> >>> >>> i'm not sure that sounds like improvement. why cant the charter just >>> allow them to decide a presentation is worth having without going >>> through all the hoops that Paul mentions if its appropriate? >> >> I don't recall feeling particularly bound by the procedure. In the sense >> that the procedure isn't limiting flexibility modula bill's issue which >> we have historically(over course of my experience) interpreted it rather >> liberally anyway. > > ok so you and bill are saying paul's summary is incorrect?
We will consider late submissions particularly of timely material. They do get reviewed. We want slides! There's a finite amount of time in the agenda and in order to have a published agenda a month or more in advance we need to fill slots early so presentations submitted on time have an advantage. There are cancellations, and lightening talk slots so don't give up hope if you miss the deadline. > thats good too, if we are removing myths and misconceptions from the > nanog community. > > i look forwards to seeing paul's upcoming preso ;) At this meeting? we're out of slots. Lightening talk submission should open shortly. regards joelja > Steve >
