Thank you, that's great feedback and great ideas.
Regards,
-Dave
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 9:51 PM, John Kemp wrote:
>
> I would like to see the session continue in some form.
> Social was close to good.
>
> The peering presentations weren't as useful to me personally.
> They sometimes made the ti
I would like to see the session continue in some form.
Social was close to good.
The peering presentations weren't as useful to me personally.
They sometimes made the time for actual peering conversations
too short.
The extra food and drinks were not important to me personally.
...
Perhaps an
Hi Bob,
This was inadvertent and we will bring this back for NANOG 70.
Regards,
-Dave
On Feb 6, 2017, 6:58 PM -0500, Bob Evans , wrote:
> I suggest in the future NOT to get rid of something because a new method
> is attempted. I.E nanog had a nice method of identifying potential and
> existing
I suggest in the future NOT to get rid of something because a new method
is attempted. I.E nanog had a nice method of identifying potential and
existing peers with a simple green dot at registration to indicate an
individual was involved with BGP in their company. That went away and
today there is
Someone will need to volunteer and organize this track just like others. It
has been challenging to find content. Topic can be contraversial and of
course people might not want to always speak as open as they should in
order to make the time useful.
I have really liked peering bof personally from
The peering social at previous NANOG meetings has been excellent and
very useful. As you mentioned, the peering personals are perhaps not
as valuable. It would be great to see the social portion come back in
some form.
Jay
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Dave Temkin wrote:
> The Peering Personal
The Peering Personals has been shelved while we try to figure out a better
option.
There was no peering content submitted to the Program Committee that justified
a separate track, and so they chose to include the content in the general
session throughout the program.
Regards,
-Dave
On Feb 6,
On that same topic, Peering, I would like to see the green peering dot
for name badges.
Kind of "one" of the fundamental things that NANOG came into existing over.
Thank You
Bob Evans
CTO
> I'm squinting at the Guidebook for NANOG69,
> and I don't seem to see any peering BOF or
> peering soci
I'm squinting at the Guidebook for NANOG69,
and I don't seem to see any peering BOF or
peering social this time around. Am I being
blind again, and it's on the agenda somewhere
but I'm just overlooking it?
Pointers in the right direction would be appreciated.
Thanks! :)
Matt
9 matches
Mail list logo
