Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?
I did swing by Radio Shack. It can be done, but then I thought about it and the professional queue system was $1500. I think that Merit should make an investment in it to improve the conference and speaking experience. It would be well worth it in terms of making things run smoother. $1500!? Go to ebay and pick up an old PocketPC for a tenth of that and install this speech timer freeware: http://www.jimkofalt.com/modules/mydownloads/ Or get an old laptop (386 should do fine) and set it up to flash cues to the speakers. --Michael Dillon ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 2:06 AM, Steve Feldman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 27, 2008, at 8:51 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 11:23 PM, Ren Provo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We consider the surveys, in addition to mailing list and hallway discussions. I agree with the first two, but not the last. That's the clubby part. I disagree with this assessment of the hallway discussions. One of the things I really admire about the current PC is how they actively engage people between and after sessions to solicit feedback. It would be a mistake to ignore this, just as it would be a mistake to ignore any other form of input. Steve Let me rephrase. I'm always skeptical when I hear terms like a lot of people told us... or everyone feels like or there's support for xyz. Who feels like that? Who supports xyz? Who told us? One PC member just put someone into context so I think it's fair to make sure we put the entire issue into context. I will restate it. I support the Peernig BoF. Can we now do other things like figure out how to not let marketing talks slip into the program? Best, Marty -M ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?
Martin Hannigan wrote: Let me rephrase. I'm always skeptical when I hear terms like a lot of people told us... or everyone feels like or there's support for xyz. Who feels like that? Who supports xyz? Who told us? One PC member just put someone into context so I think it's fair to make sure we put the entire issue into context. I presented at NANOG42. After answering several individual questions off-podium, and getting kicked out of the room (gee, that wasn't nice), Todd provided some timely feedback (with good detail) on my presentation. Context? Let's see if that commentary makes it into the survey. If it does, great. If it doesn't, we have at least one datapoint that indicates that hallway polling is beneficial feedback which is not being captured (offered?) into the surveys. I will restate it. I support the Peernig BoF. Can we now do other things like figure out how to not let marketing talks slip into the program? Any ideas on how to achieve that? Only thing I can think of is a PC post-conference review of the talks that were accepted and a comparison to the PC's opinions and comments of the slide presentations submitted. (Interesting observations come to mind though: ex-MLC members have told me to 'put up or shut up' when trying to discuss how continental borders should influence on/off-topicness, but now a current (last I checked) MLC member thinks we should figure out how to police the talks. Such a varied group are we.) pt ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Pete Templin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Martin Hannigan wrote: Let me rephrase. I'm always skeptical when I hear terms like a lot of people told us... or everyone feels like or there's support for xyz. Who feels like that? Who supports xyz? Who told us? One PC member just put someone into context so I think it's fair to make sure we put the entire issue into context. Context? Let's see if that commentary makes it into the survey. If it does, great. If it doesn't, we have at least one datapoint that indicates that hallway polling is beneficial feedback which is not being captured (offered?) into the surveys. That is a good point. I will restate it. I support the Peernig BoF. Can we now do other things like figure out how to not let marketing talks slip into the program? Any ideas on how to achieve that? Only thing I can think of is a PC I'll try and think of a few. I think that the one I'm thinking about was a surprise, and you can't really know what every speaker is going to say or do when they get to the podium. It may not be solvable in that context. post-conference review of the talks that were accepted and a comparison to the PC's opinions and comments of the slide presentations submitted. I did fill out a survey noting my concern. There was one other concern, now that we are in context mode, that I think could be helpful for the PC to evaluate when reviewing all of the things that they could review to get some more results. The lightning talk expansion is great. The format is ok. I think that we should expand the time for lightning talks to include a 10 minute Q/A period at the end of the period instead of trying to cram questions into the end of the 10 minute time slot. We could take questions for all of the talks at the end period. I received questions about my talk in the hallways that the entire group did not get the benefit of (or the boredom in listening to) the answers. We might also want to invest in a timer that moves from green/yellow/red based on the alloted time. I noticed that some people were held to a rock solid standard, others weren't. It's distracting when the speaker gets verbal time warnings(not anyones fault, it just is). Time ticks are needed, but there's a better way to do it, methinks. (Interesting observations come to mind though: ex-MLC members have told me to 'put up or shut up' when trying to discuss how continental borders should influence on/off-topicness, but now a current (last I checked) MLC member thinks we should figure out how to police the talks. Such a varied group are we.) I don't understand the correlation, but I'm not suggesting that we police talks from down here in the castle moat. Were you literally tossed out of the room? What's up with that? Best Regards, Marty ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 09:48:30AM -0500, Martin Hannigan wrote: The lightning talk expansion is great. The format is ok. I think that we should expand the time for lightning talks to include a 10 minute Q/A period at the end of the period instead of trying to cram questions into the end of the 10 minute time slot. We could take questions for all of the talks at the end period. I received questions about my talk in the hallways that the entire group did not get the benefit of (or the boredom in listening to) the answers. Your talk was more than detailed and interesting enough to belong in the general session. Lightning talks shouldn't be used as an alternative to real presentations, or you suffer the consequences you mentioned above. Next time submit it for the general session, I for one would have voted for it. We might also want to invest in a timer that moves from green/yellow/red based on the alloted time. I noticed that some people were held to a rock solid standard, others weren't. It's distracting when the speaker gets verbal time warnings(not anyones fault, it just is). Time ticks are needed, but there's a better way to do it, methinks. Wholeheartedly agreed. Even a $5 alarm clock with a big LCD on the stage would be an major improvement, it's difficult to tell how you're doing for time or if you should speed things up or slow things down when you're in the middle of a presentation. -- Richard A Steenbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC) ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?
Richard A Steenbergen wrote: We might also want to invest in a timer that moves from green/yellow/red based on the alloted time. I noticed that some people were held to a rock solid standard, others weren't. It's distracting when the speaker gets verbal time warnings(not anyones fault, it just is). Time ticks are needed, but there's a better way to do it, methinks. Wholeheartedly agreed. Even a $5 alarm clock with a big LCD on the stage would be an major improvement, it's difficult to tell how you're doing for time or if you should speed things up or slow things down when you're in the middle of a presentation. When I mc part of the program, I have a powerpoint slide deck with 10 5 and 1 minute markers which I place in the plane of view of the speaker at the appropriate moments. Not sure if the lightning talks speakers appreciate that but monday 12:00-13:00 ran smoothly. ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?
I'm sorry to be a bit contrarian here, but... Looking at the crowd that assembles for the peering BOF, it's clearly one of the more popular things on the NANOG program. It may not draw the raw numbers of people that the general session does, but it does tend to pack whatever room it's in. People in the room tend to be attentive and engaged, whether or not they have anything to do with peering. It's a lot of fun, and it's clear to me that enough attendees want it on the program for it to be worthwhile. That said, while the latest one struck me as a vast improvement over the last few, I can't say I've actually learned much from most of the recent peering BOFs or from the last few exchange point operator forums I've been to. The agendas tend to strike me as entertaining but recycled filler, perhaps useful for getting people into a room and talking, but not nearly what they could be. When I think back to the peering BOFs and exchange operator-sponsored forums of several years ago, I used to come out of them with some better understanding of how peering worked. There were talks on things like how much of peering traffic was P2P back when that was new and scary. Large parts of the program were made up of peering personals, where I would learn who was looking for what sort of peers. In addition, there were exchange operator-sponsored forums, in which people would give talks about peering-related issues they had faced and how they had solved them, observations about how peering worked in other parts of the world, views into highly secretive tier 1 peering operations, and the like. The exchange operator-sponsored forums are now gone, having been replaced by parties where the content consists of fake game shows. The peering BOF content now consists of things like the great debates, which while it's entertaining to to see people trying to justify extreme positions, never feel to me like they get anywhere close to establishing what the right answer to the question being debated -- presumably somewhere between the two extremes -- would be. So, I wouldn't suggest that the current peering BOF or exchange operator-sponsored forums go away. They're good fun social events and NANOG could often use more of those. But I don't think we've run out of new things to say, or new issues to address, in the areas of peering and other forms of interconnection. It would be nice if there were some more serious forums as well. (And yes, I know, this counts as sniping from the sidelines. The big impediment to what I'm asking for here is presumably having somebody step up and organize it). -Steve On Sun, 24 Feb 2008, Ren Provo wrote: On behalf of the NANOG PC: Nothing has been submitted in the NANOG tool and nothing has been declined. The survey results from NANOG42 this week have not been made available to the PC yet. We would like to review community feedback on this topic. Hallway discussions this past week in San Jose suggest some would like to see a more diverse selection of topics at the very least. Bill was asked on Wednesday not to make commitments until we, the NANOG PC, are able to review feedback and perhaps expand the cramped format into a track. Thanks, -Ren Provo, NANOG Program Committee, Vice-Chair On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 8:00 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 24, 2008, at 12:57 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: Chris Malayter wrote: Would you ask the PC to release the minutes from the SJC nanog and any meeting since. Given that the pc last met on tuesday at lunch, I think the minutes when released will prove to be a poor source the sort information you're looking for. Let's stop dancing around the issue. There was discussion regarding the Peering BoF amongst the SC PC. There is no reason to hide this fact - just the opposite. And there were at least some provisional outcomes from those discussions. I am unclear on why those decisions are not being announced to the community. The question is where we stand in the process. If the PC does not have an official stance, then we should all stop speculating until there is an official stance or (hopefully) an official request for input from the community. If the PC has an official stance, then the community needs to hear it ASAP. Either way, gossiping on a mailing list is not the right way. We had a revolution, let's follow our own rules. As Randy like to proclaim every 14 ms, let's have some transparency. What was said, why was it said, and what decisions were made? SC / PC members, please step up, so we can all go back to arguing over leaking deaggs. :) -- TTFN, patrick ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org
Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?
It's distracting when the speaker gets verbal time warnings(not anyones fault, it just is). Time ticks are needed, but there's a better way to do it, methinks. [ clip ] When I mc part of the program, I have a powerpoint slide deck with 10 5 and 1 minute markers which I place in the plane of view of the speaker at the appropriate moments. Not sure if the lightning talks speakers appreciate that but monday 12:00-13:00 ran smoothly. Thanks for sticking your computer in front of us while we're talking? The point is that something non obtrusive would be better. The soft lighting of cue lights seems less intrusive, but they sure are damn expensive. I think I'll swing by Radio Shack and see if I can rig up a system for $10 + 9v. -M ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?
-Original Message- From: Martin Hannigan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 11:36 AM To: Joel Jaeggli Cc: nanog-futures Subject: Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout? It's distracting when the speaker gets verbal time warnings(not anyones fault, it just is). Time ticks are needed, but there's a better way to do it, methinks. [ clip ] When I mc part of the program, I have a powerpoint slide deck with 10 5 and 1 minute markers which I place in the plane of view of the speaker at the appropriate moments. Not sure if the lightning talks speakers appreciate that but monday 12:00-13:00 ran smoothly. Thanks for sticking your computer in front of us while we're talking? The point is that something non obtrusive would be better. The soft lighting of cue lights seems less intrusive, but they sure are damn expensive. I think I'll swing by Radio Shack and see if I can rig up a system for $10 + 9v. -M http://www.wholesalechess.com/chess/chess_clocks/ChessTimer+Plus+Digital+Chess+Clock?ac=froogl Regards, Mike PGP.sig Description: PGP signature ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?
Martin Hannigan wrote: It's distracting when the speaker gets verbal time warnings(not anyones fault, it just is). Time ticks are needed, but there's a better way to do it, methinks. [ clip ] When I mc part of the program, I have a powerpoint slide deck with 10 5 and 1 minute markers which I place in the plane of view of the speaker at the appropriate moments. Not sure if the lightning talks speakers appreciate that but monday 12:00-13:00 ran smoothly. Thanks for sticking your computer in front of us while we're talking? I knew I could count on a contrarian opinion from someplace... Personally I've found it less intrusive than poking the speaker or using hand gestures... The point is that something non obtrusive would be better. The soft lighting of cue lights seems less intrusive, but they sure are damn expensive. I think I'll swing by Radio Shack and see if I can rig up a system for $10 + 9v. Alternate attempts at improvisation are of course welcome... ;) -M ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 3:05 PM, Joel Jaeggli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Martin Hannigan wrote: [ clip ] The point is that something non obtrusive would be better. The soft lighting of cue lights seems less intrusive, but they sure are damn expensive. I think I'll swing by Radio Shack and see if I can rig up a system for $10 + 9v. Alternate attempts at improvisation are of course welcome... ;) I did swing by Radio Shack. It can be done, but then I thought about it and the professional queue system was $1500. I think that Merit should make an investment in it to improve the conference and speaking experience. It would be well worth it in terms of making things run smoother. The name of what appears to be the leading company in cue lights is DSAN, and I think that the PC could come up with the requirements and then select a proper system. ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?
On Feb 25, 2008, at 6:39 PM, Philip Smith wrote: : I should mention, as an FYI, that both Peering and Security BoFs have been integral part of APRICOT for some time. Apart from the plenary session, APRICOT has parallel tracks (we call them streams). The organisers of both tracks taking the lead in organising their content in conjunction with the APRICOT PC. So formalising the long running BoFs at NANOG in a similar way should really not be seen as a backward step. Philip - I agree mostly with what you have said, but the conjunction with the APRICOT PC is a bit looser than I think you imply. Here is what I see. For the last bunch of years I have been leading the APRICOT peering tracks, typically a half day, once a full day, and this year we lengthened it to 1.5 days and called it the APRICOT Peering Forum. At APRICOT, as with NANOG, there is a CFP. I try and put in a plea in there specifically for Peering Coordinators/Network Engineers to talk about their peering experiences, buildouts, lessons learned, interesting traffic patterns, etc. across Asia and into the US. I do this to bring in those doing or involved in peering to the forum. Each year there are about zero talks submitted to the peering track or forum through this process. So I spend three months emailing, cold calling, IRCing, and encouraging folks that I see at other conferences to share the interesting stories that they shared with me in the hallways at these events, at the APRICOT Peering Forum. Months before APRICOT they are more often interested but non committal, not sure if they will attend APRICOT. Typically in the last month or so, folks decide to attend and I work with them directly to share a topic and abstract and talk for the peering forum agenda. I've been using google docs as the repository for the agenda, and have kept Gaurab (APRICOT Program Chair) in the loop as I go through the panic(we don't have enough topics/speakers), logistics issues(speakers cancelled, got sick, etc), all the way through to the ok, phew, we have a good agenda cycle. Maybe behind the scenes the program chair has shared/reviewed/ discussed the peering forum agenda with others, but my perception, as with the NANOG Peering BOF the last few years, is that it has been more analogous to Here is a 90 minute block for the Peering community, Bill - do the right thing. So, more of a hands off approach than 'conjunction with the APRICOT PC' is my perception. As for the Peering BOF XVII thing... Every peering BOF we try something new. Successes include the great debates. Failures or Controversial issues include the transit surveys and the attempted humor in the Peering News. We make mistakes and learn, and try not to make the same mistake twice. By trying something new each time, we will of course stumble upon corresponding successes and failures. That flexibility, informality, last minute stuff from the field is what makes the Peering BOF fun. To me, the nanog-futures discussion is, how should/did this Steering Committee/Program Committee apparatus, respond to complaints that result from these failures? If there is to be a change to this very successful part of NANOG, is it because it has become a fixture of NANOG? To repair some perceived brokenness? To make it better or broader? What does the community think it should look like? Bill ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?
Hallway discussions this past week in San Jose suggest some would like to see a more diverse selection of topics at the very least. Bill was asked on Wednesday not to make commitments until we, the NANOG PC, are able to review feedback and perhaps expand the cramped format into a track. Leave it alone. The one comment that I have to contribute for Bill is he should attempt to see if there's a way to make it not so clubby. Other than that, I support it being left alone unless there is a real problem. Bill should consider proposing the solution himself. I'm sure he can find one. -M ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?
Joel spewed: I think it would be remiss of the pc to not review the status of program elements. That would be an abrogation of the responsibility invested the pc by the charter. Further I believe that PC review of a popular and successful program element would be with the goal of helping it grow. Can we see the procedure that you're going to make up to do this first? -M ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?
--- On Wed, 2/27/08, Martin Hannigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Further I believe that PC review of a popular and successful program element would be with the goal of helping it grow. Can we see the procedure that you're going to make up to do this first? I'm not sure that pre-defining procedures of this type is helpful. Given that the general consensus is that the peering BOFs are successful and popular now, it's reasonable to expect that the PC has no desire to radically change things - this isn't in need of a serious overhaul. I suspect that writing procedures for a review of this nature would be harder than performing said review. David Barak Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise: http://www.listentothefranchise.com Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?
We consider the surveys, in addition to mailing list and hallway discussions. A rough cut from SJC was made available during the NANOG PC call this week but should be posted soon for NANOG42. Previous survey material - http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0710/surveyresults.html http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0706/surveyresults.html http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0702/surveyresults.html http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0610/nanog38_suvey_results.html http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0606/surveys/ etc. Cheers, -ren On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 10:33 PM, Martin Hannigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Joel spewed: I think it would be remiss of the pc to not review the status of program elements. That would be an abrogation of the responsibility invested the pc by the charter. Further I believe that PC review of a popular and successful program element would be with the goal of helping it grow. Can we see the procedure that you're going to make up to do this first? -M ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 11:23 PM, Ren Provo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We consider the surveys, in addition to mailing list and hallway discussions. I agree with the first two, but not the last. That's the clubby part. -M ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?
On Feb 27, 2008, at 8:51 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 11:23 PM, Ren Provo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We consider the surveys, in addition to mailing list and hallway discussions. I agree with the first two, but not the last. That's the clubby part. I disagree with this assessment of the hallway discussions. One of the things I really admire about the current PC is how they actively engage people between and after sessions to solicit feedback. It would be a mistake to ignore this, just as it would be a mistake to ignore any other form of input. Steve ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?
Hi Patrick, Patrick W. Gilmore said the following on 25/2/08 11:00: Let's stop dancing around the issue. There was discussion regarding the Peering BoF amongst the SC PC. There is no reason to hide this fact - just the opposite. And there were at least some provisional outcomes from those discussions. I am unclear on why those decisions are not being announced to the community. Yes, there was a brief discussion at the SC meeting on Wednesday - the PC Chair participates on the SC as an ex-officio member. (The minutes have just been passed on to Merit for publication - they will be at http://www.nanog.org/sc.minutes08.html, findable from the NANOG website home page under General Info - Steering Committee.) We noted that complaints had been received about a particular item in the Peering BoF, and agreed that the PC should discuss closer review of the BoF content with the BoF organisers. We also discussed in general about BoFs that have become a fixture in the programme as opposed to being a once or twice occurrence (which is the more normal understanding of BoFs, I'd say). Both the Peering and Security BoFs have been a long term and an incredibly valuable part of NANOG for many years, so we felt that giving them the true recognition they deserved as an integral part of the programme would be something worth exploring moving forwards. And of course, being part of the programme would mean following the same processes for content review as the rest of the NANOG programme. I should mention, as an FYI, that both Peering and Security BoFs have been integral part of APRICOT for some time. Apart from the plenary session, APRICOT has parallel tracks (we call them streams). The organisers of both tracks taking the lead in organising their content in conjunction with the APRICOT PC. So formalising the long running BoFs at NANOG in a similar way should really not be seen as a backward step. Either way, gossiping on a mailing list is not the right way. Certainly the rumour mill has been busy... SC / PC members, please step up, so we can all go back to arguing over leaking deaggs. :) Hopefully I've helped clarify. Now let's go back to talking about leaking prefixes... :-) philip SC Chair -- ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
[Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?
Greetings All, What's the deal with the Peering BOF for NY? I've heard rumors running wild that we're not going to have one, we're going to have one but Bill isn't going to run it, to we're moving to a peering track and a track bases system. I would like to know what's the deal and would like to throw my support behind Bill for the 17 BOF's that he's done so far. I think that kicking him out after all this time for a misplaced joke seems to be a bit over the top. If nothing else, I would imagine that the numbers continuing to grow over time should show that the interest has not been lost, and that the people like the format and the effort that Bill puts into it. If the PC is going to axe the BOF, I would like some transparency and explantion to the rest of us as to the rationelle so we can have it in the public forum for debate. -Chris ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?
Chris Malayter wrote: Greetings All, What's the deal with the Peering BOF for NY? I've heard rumors running wild that we're not going to have one, we're going to have one but Bill isn't going to run it, to we're moving to a peering track and a track bases system. I would like to know what's the deal and would like to throw my support behind Bill for the 17 BOF's that he's done so far. I think that kicking him out after all this time for a misplaced joke seems to be a bit over the top. If nothing else, I would imagine that the numbers continuing to grow over time should show that the interest has not been lost, and that the people like the format and the effort that Bill puts into it. If the PC is going to axe the BOF, I would like some transparency and explantion to the rest of us as to the rationelle so we can have it in the public forum for debate. thanks mr murdoch. rumors of the bof's or bill's death are probably a bit exaggerated. randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?
On 2/24/08, Chris Malayter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Greetings All, What's the deal with the Peering BOF for NY? I've heard rumors running wild that we're not going to have one, we're going to have one but Bill isn't going to run it, to we're moving to a peering track and a track bases system. I would like to know what's the deal and would like to throw my support behind Bill for the 17 BOF's that he's done so far. I think that kicking him out after all this time for a misplaced joke seems to be a bit over the top. If nothing else, I would imagine that the numbers continuing to grow over time should show that the interest has not been lost, and that the people like the format and the effort that Bill puts into it. 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 expanded to cover a full day. /vijay ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?
thanks mr murdoch. No problem Mr Hyde rumors of the bof's or bill's death are probably a bit exaggerated. Was just trying to get some transparency as to what was going on with it. randy Chris ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?
http://xkcd.com/386/ ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 03:12:55AM -0600, Chris Malayter wrote: Greetings All, What's the deal with the Peering BOF for NY? I've heard rumors running wild that we're not going to have one, we're going to have one but Bill isn't going to run it, to we're moving to a peering track and a track bases system. As far as I know, the PC hasn't met to discuss the agenda for 43; if anyone has been other than drumming up talks, they are likely the ones jumping the gun. I would challenge anyone to look at the agenda just passed, past ones with multipart BoFs and Tutorials, et al and not see tracks. Other than the word (and implied more space), what is so scary about 'tracks'? (no, that's a serious question) [snip] If nothing else, I would imagine that the numbers continuing to grow over time should show that the interest has not been lost, and that the people like the format and the effort that Bill puts into it. I don't think any suggestion of more times and formal slot on an agenda is anything but indication there is a great deal of support for peering items, but the surveys provide direct feedback. The headcount in the room (170+ this go round) IMO speak to needing more resources than a small ad-hoc bof room. When a BoF demonstrates such strong traction as the many year recurring, many hour consuming security and peering bofs, perhaps the legacy sentiment of past PCs need to be shrugged off and these be allowed to 'grow up' to larger agenda space. If the PC is going to axe the BOF, I would like some transparency and explantion to the rest of us as to the rationelle so we can have it in the public forum for debate. I think anyone who thinks that review of standing program elements like the rest of the program is the same as axing anything needs their head examined. If people don't want to be transparent and share what they want to present to the PC, what puts them above the rest of the presenters? Arbitrary program selection was one of the pre-open-process PC we all wanted to move away from, right? Joe, speaking for himself, and thinking the program submission tool is open so anyone interested in getting content submitted for NANOG 43 certainly can! -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?
Hey Joe, Would you ask the PC to release the minutes from the SJC nanog and any meeting since. Thanks, -Chris On Sun, 24 Feb 2008, Joe Provo wrote: On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 03:12:55AM -0600, Chris Malayter wrote: Greetings All, What's the deal with the Peering BOF for NY? I've heard rumors running wild that we're not going to have one, we're going to have one but Bill isn't going to run it, to we're moving to a peering track and a track bases system. As far as I know, the PC hasn't met to discuss the agenda for 43; if anyone has been other than drumming up talks, they are likely the ones jumping the gun. I would challenge anyone to look at the agenda just passed, past ones with multipart BoFs and Tutorials, et al and not see tracks. Other than the word (and implied more space), what is so scary about 'tracks'? (no, that's a serious question) [snip] If nothing else, I would imagine that the numbers continuing to grow over time should show that the interest has not been lost, and that the people like the format and the effort that Bill puts into it. I don't think any suggestion of more times and formal slot on an agenda is anything but indication there is a great deal of support for peering items, but the surveys provide direct feedback. The headcount in the room (170+ this go round) IMO speak to needing more resources than a small ad-hoc bof room. When a BoF demonstrates such strong traction as the many year recurring, many hour consuming security and peering bofs, perhaps the legacy sentiment of past PCs need to be shrugged off and these be allowed to 'grow up' to larger agenda space. If the PC is going to axe the BOF, I would like some transparency and explantion to the rest of us as to the rationelle so we can have it in the public forum for debate. I think anyone who thinks that review of standing program elements like the rest of the program is the same as axing anything needs their head examined. If people don't want to be transparent and share what they want to present to the PC, what puts them above the rest of the presenters? Arbitrary program selection was one of the pre-open-process PC we all wanted to move away from, right? Joe, speaking for himself, and thinking the program submission tool is open so anyone interested in getting content submitted for NANOG 43 certainly can! -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 03:12:55AM -0600, Chris Malayter wrote: Greetings All, What's the deal with the Peering BOF for NY? I've heard rumors running wild that we're not going to have one, we're going to have one but Bill isn't going to run it, to we're moving to a peering track and a track bases system. Pretty odd rumors. Considering that a large portion of the PC has an extensive background in peering, and that all of the peering events are consistently popular among nanog attendees, I can't imagine why anyone would think that there is any kind of plan to eliminate them. That said, I personally think it is pretty inappropriate for us to assume that there will always be a standing Peering BOF, and that it will always be hosted by Bill Norton, without any review of the content or other submissions on the subject. Every other piece of content which is presented at NANOG, including every other BOF, is selected and approved by the PC as per their job description. Making a special exemption for Bill Norton (a member of the SC, which elects the PC) could easily give the impression of undue favoritism to the outside world, and defeat all of the work that has been put into providing openness and transparency into the process. As far as I am aware there hasn't been any official discussion regarding the peering events for NANOG 43 yet, but speaking strictly for myself here, my personal inclination would be to expand them and work to increase and improve their content, not the other way around. -- Richard A Steenbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC) ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?
Hi Richard, Richard A Steenbergen said the following on 25/2/08 08:21: Making a special exemption for Bill Norton (a member of the SC, which elects the PC) could easily give the impression of undue favoritism to the outside world, and defeat all of the work that has been put into providing openness and transparency into the process. Just a small comment. Bill's service to the community as an SC member completed in October last year. philip -- ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 09:28:06AM +1000, Philip Smith wrote: Richard A Steenbergen said the following on 25/2/08 08:21: Making a special exemption for Bill Norton (a member of the SC, which elects the PC) could easily give the impression of undue favoritism to the outside world, and defeat all of the work that has been put into providing openness and transparency into the process. Just a small comment. Bill's service to the community as an SC member completed in October last year. Ah, indeed, I should be paying more attention to these things. :P At any rate the point remains basically the same, we shouldn't be creating exemptions which look like favoritism. Also note that I mean absolutely no disrespect to Bill's contributions to both the SC and the Peering BOF throughout the years. He has done an excellent job on all fronts, and is a valued contributor to the NANOG community, but I don't think that means we should be making special exemptions to the normal PC process for him or anyone else. My comments were about fairness and transparency in the process, not saying that Bill shouldn't continue to be involved with the Peering BOF or any other peering events. If that sentiment is in any way associated the previously mentioned rumors that there won't be a peering BOF or that Bill won't be involved, I would call that a misinterpretation. My personal opinions at any rate. -- Richard A Steenbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC) ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?
On Feb 24, 2008, at 12:57 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: Chris Malayter wrote: Would you ask the PC to release the minutes from the SJC nanog and any meeting since. Given that the pc last met on tuesday at lunch, I think the minutes when released will prove to be a poor source the sort information you're looking for. Let's stop dancing around the issue. There was discussion regarding the Peering BoF amongst the SC PC. There is no reason to hide this fact - just the opposite. And there were at least some provisional outcomes from those discussions. I am unclear on why those decisions are not being announced to the community. The question is where we stand in the process. If the PC does not have an official stance, then we should all stop speculating until there is an official stance or (hopefully) an official request for input from the community. If the PC has an official stance, then the community needs to hear it ASAP. Either way, gossiping on a mailing list is not the right way. We had a revolution, let's follow our own rules. As Randy like to proclaim every 14 ms, let's have some transparency. What was said, why was it said, and what decisions were made? SC / PC members, please step up, so we can all go back to arguing over leaking deaggs. :) -- TTFN, patrick ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?
On behalf of the NANOG PC: Nothing has been submitted in the NANOG tool and nothing has been declined. The survey results from NANOG42 this week have not been made available to the PC yet. We would like to review community feedback on this topic. Hallway discussions this past week in San Jose suggest some would like to see a more diverse selection of topics at the very least. Bill was asked on Wednesday not to make commitments until we, the NANOG PC, are able to review feedback and perhaps expand the cramped format into a track. Thanks, -Ren Provo, NANOG Program Committee, Vice-Chair On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 8:00 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 24, 2008, at 12:57 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: Chris Malayter wrote: Would you ask the PC to release the minutes from the SJC nanog and any meeting since. Given that the pc last met on tuesday at lunch, I think the minutes when released will prove to be a poor source the sort information you're looking for. Let's stop dancing around the issue. There was discussion regarding the Peering BoF amongst the SC PC. There is no reason to hide this fact - just the opposite. And there were at least some provisional outcomes from those discussions. I am unclear on why those decisions are not being announced to the community. The question is where we stand in the process. If the PC does not have an official stance, then we should all stop speculating until there is an official stance or (hopefully) an official request for input from the community. If the PC has an official stance, then the community needs to hear it ASAP. Either way, gossiping on a mailing list is not the right way. We had a revolution, let's follow our own rules. As Randy like to proclaim every 14 ms, let's have some transparency. What was said, why was it said, and what decisions were made? SC / PC members, please step up, so we can all go back to arguing over leaking deaggs. :) -- TTFN, patrick ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
