> Anything that we
> can do to see a productive community meeting, a thoughtful
> election, and meetings with the SC, PC and MLC that lead to a
> better NANOG.
Quite frankly, if you are one of the uninitiated, and that includes the
managers that decide whether or not to fund someone's travel to
> How do we determine what people do want to read vs. what they don't?
Do a survey.
Go through all the NANOG postings for the past two months, and select a
representative sample of messages representing different topics,
different authors (including all the prolific ones). Try to get a real
vari
> What I like about the RIPE and APRICOT (and perhaps even ARIN)
> conferences apart is that they encourage and invite participation
> from the community through the use of tracks and working groups,
> while still maintaining a significant number of interesting
> presentations for the community a
Don,
I appreciate you taking the effort to reach out to the community.
I will not be attending the next NANOG for several reasons not
worth mentioning in the greater context of your request.
I have attended most of the NANOG meetings starting with NANOG 13.
I am among those whom have passively o
How do we determine what people do want to read vs. what they don't?
It would be nice to have some direction. I don't mean from futures,
there's nobody really here, but I mean community wide overall? How do
we determine what people "really" want to he
I've been involved with NANOG for over a year now. I have formed my
opinions on how well things work or don't work and will steal my own
thunder in this post.
I have already charged Betty to increase the value of NANOG to Merit. I
think she has taken some good steps in this direction. During t
William B. Norton wrote:
The big $$$ is to the hotel - $105K for 1 mtg.
This is just for the conference rooms? That's a lot more expensive that
I would have thought.
The bottom line, I think you need a few FTEs no matter how you manage NANOG.
No argument there. There will always be a n
On 10/9/07, Sean Figgins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Joe Abley wrote:
>
> > No, there's a fixed overhead from having N x Merit FTEs doing NANOG
> > stuff year-round, housing NANOG servers, being covered by UMich
> > insurance, accounting, blah, blah. I'm not an accountant, as you can
> > probabl
Joe Abley wrote:
No, there's a fixed overhead from having N x Merit FTEs doing NANOG
stuff year-round, housing NANOG servers, being covered by UMich
insurance, accounting, blah, blah. I'm not an accountant, as you can
probably tell, but I think that's the right high-level answer.
Just out of
Stephen Wilcox wrote:
theres a lot more competition for meetings, and they have diversified -
the industry has evolved.
i think the SC should review the idea of 2 meetings per year tho, maybe
that will bring focus and relevance. can i ask you to take it to your
next SC meeting?
I don't kno
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 sen
On 9-Oct-2007, at 1206, 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 think the charter gives the PC lots of latitud
On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 04:42:42PM +0100, Stephen Wilcox wrote:
>
> On 9 Oct 2007, at 16:19, Joe Abley wrote:
>
> >
> > On 9-Oct-2007, at 1053, Stephen Wilcox wrote:
> >
> >> i think the SC should review the idea of 2 meetings per year tho, maybe
> >> that will bring focus and relevance. can i
On 10/9/07, Stephen Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> There is a charter amendment on the upcoming election to strike that text
> so the PC will have the ability to self manage their process of recruiting
> and selecting talks and speakers.
>
> One can envision for example a variety of progra
On 9 Oct 2007, at 16:57, William B. Norton wrote:
On 10/8/07, Paul Ferguson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For instance: I made an offer a few weeks back to give a presentation
on what ISPs could to do to help in fighting cyber crime. I was told
that I need to follow "this procedure" and submit
On 10/8/07, Paul Ferguson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For instance: I made an offer a few weeks back to give a presentation
> on what ISPs could to do to help in fighting cyber crime. I was told
> that I need to follow "this procedure" and submit a proposal, etc.,
> which is fine - I suppose. But
On 9-Oct-2007, at 1142, Stephen Wilcox wrote:
Um arent the costs of NANOG solely the costs of the meetings?
No, there's a fixed overhead from having N x Merit FTEs doing NANOG
stuff year-round, housing NANOG servers, being covered by UMich
insurance, accounting, blah, blah. I'm not an acc
On 9 Oct 2007, at 16:19, Joe Abley wrote:
On 9-Oct-2007, at 1053, Stephen Wilcox wrote:
i think the SC should review the idea of 2 meetings per year tho,
maybe that will bring focus and relevance. can i ask you to take
it to your next SC meeting?
I will not be on the SC after NANOG 41,
Along the lines of this discussion thread, we should probably solicit here
for agenda items to bring up at the community meeting.
The community meeting is after all one place (like this list) for people to
bring up and discuss things to fix/change/reinforce wrt all things NANOG.
If we can collect
On 9-Oct-2007, at 1053, Stephen Wilcox wrote:
i think the SC should review the idea of 2 meetings per year tho,
maybe that will bring focus and relevance. can i ask you to take it
to your next SC meeting?
I will not be on the SC after NANOG 41, but I will certainly bring it
up there.
W
On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 10:32:44AM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
>
> Do the enthusiastic NANOGers of 2000 just not have time/energy for
> this any more, and do their counterparts in 2007 find themselves in a
> business where the manuals are already written, and they just need to
> follow along?
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
I actually think the PC has done a pretty good job over the last 6
meetings. It's entirely possible that I have a strong cognitive bias due
to my participation in it. However, that reminds me. We could use more
nominees/volunteers for the PC, in the next 8
Is the reduced usefulness of NANOG that Vijay observes a result of
the revolution, or a result of SRH no longer being involved, or a
sign of the times, or something else?
see my other email, i think that point is overemphasised..
I'm not at all convinced you can make such a sweeping general
On 9-Oct-2007, at 0512, Paul Ferguson wrote:
- -- "vijay gill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Really, reading this thread has left me stupider. I guess instead of
focusing on things like the lightweight agenda, abysmal content and
actual value to be had from NANOG,
I'm glad someone finally said
On 9 Oct 2007, at 06:16, Alex Pilosov wrote:
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, vijay gill wrote:
Really, reading this thread has left me stupider. I guess instead of
focusing on things like the lightweight agenda, abysmal content and
actual value to be had from NANOG, we are getting tied up
discussing an
25 matches
Mail list logo
