Re: Peering BOF/Peering social @NANOG69?

[Dave Temkin]

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 time for actual peering conversations
> too short.
>
> The extra food and drinks were not important to me personally.
>
> ...
>
> Perhaps an "extended break" 45 minutes, with typical
> break food, and no presentations.  Or if you want, a *silent*
> rolling slide show on a screen, with 1-slide per submitter,
> for peering news items or general peering requests...
>
> Cheaper... quieter... shorter...  But having all the people
> in the same room at the same time for the same purpose, usually
> pretty useful.
>
> 2 cents,
> John Kemp
>
>
> On 2/6/17 9:17 PM, Dave Temkin wrote:
> > 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 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 nothing. Cost of implementation was less than 5 dollars
> at
> >> any office supply retailer.
> >>
> >> Just a thought.
> >>
> >> Thank You
> >> Bob Evans
> >> CTO
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> 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, 2017, 8:12 AM -0500, Matthew Petach ,
> >>> wrote:
>  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
> >>>
> >>
> >>
>
>

Re: Peering BOF/Peering social @NANOG69?

[John Kemp]

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 "extended break" 45 minutes, with typical
break food, and no presentations.  Or if you want, a *silent*
rolling slide show on a screen, with 1-slide per submitter,
for peering news items or general peering requests...

Cheaper... quieter... shorter...  But having all the people
in the same room at the same time for the same purpose, usually
pretty useful.

2 cents,
John Kemp


On 2/6/17 9:17 PM, Dave Temkin wrote:
> 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 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 nothing. Cost of implementation was less than 5 dollars at
>> any office supply retailer.
>>
>> Just a thought.
>>
>> Thank You
>> Bob Evans
>> CTO
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> 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, 2017, 8:12 AM -0500, Matthew Petach ,
>>> wrote:
 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
>>>
>>
>>

Re: Peering BOF/Peering social @NANOG69?

[Dave Temkin]

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 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 nothing. Cost of implementation was less than 5 dollars at
> any office supply retailer.
>
> Just a thought.
>
> Thank You
> Bob Evans
> CTO
>
>
>
>
> > 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, 2017, 8:12 AM -0500, Matthew Petach ,
> > wrote:
> > > 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
> >
>
>

Re: Peering BOF/Peering social @NANOG69?

[Bob Evans]

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 nothing. Cost of implementation was less than 5 dollars at
any office supply retailer.

Just a thought.

Thank You
Bob Evans
CTO




> 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, 2017, 8:12 AM -0500, Matthew Petach ,
> wrote:
>> 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
>

Re: Peering BOF/Peering social @NANOG69?

[Mehmet Akcin]

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 many years ago where it
provided a great platform to speak. I will volunteer to organize peering
bof in nanog 70 and present it to PC's consideration as it seems some folks
want to see that back including myself

Mehmet


On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 6:14 PM Jay Hanke  wrote:

> 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 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, 2017, 8:12 AM -0500, Matthew Petach ,
> wrote:
> >> 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
>

Re: Peering BOF/Peering social @NANOG69?

[Jay Hanke]

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 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, 2017, 8:12 AM -0500, Matthew Petach , wrote:
>> 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

Re: Peering BOF/Peering social @NANOG69?

[Dave Temkin]

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, 2017, 8:12 AM -0500, Matthew Petach , wrote:
> 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

Re: Peering BOF/Peering social @NANOG69?

[Bob Evans]

 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 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
>

Peering BOF/Peering social @NANOG69?

[Matthew Petach]

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