On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 06:20:54AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
On 10/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How do we determine what people do want to read vs. what they don't?
Do a survey.
We're going to.
-M
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?
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How do we determine what people do want to read vs. what they don't?
Do a survey.
We're going to.
-
Online? There're a lot of us that can't make it to the
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/10/07, Scott Weeks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How do we determine what people do want to read vs. what they don't?
Do a survey.
We're going to.
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Probably not feasible to do a non web forms based survey, but the list
users would be target. Lets be happy that one may get done at all. If
you dont have web, Ill call you and you and do it over phone.
-
Perhaps instigate discussion on
On 10/10/07, Scott Weeks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Probably not feasible to do a non web forms based survey, but the list
users would be target. Lets be happy that one may get done at all. If
you dont have web, Ill call you and you and do it over phone.
Martin Hannigan wrote:
I suggest with the best intention possible that marty unwad his shorts
and the rest of us STFU and GBTW.
I'll add others to the list, but yes, in the simplest possible terms, this
thread was a ridiculous waste of time of everyone involved.
Well, Vijay can KMA, but
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
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
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
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
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.
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 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,
On 10/8/07, Paul Ferguson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
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 it
On 9 Oct 2007, at 16:57, William B. Norton wrote:
On 10/8/07, Paul Ferguson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
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 10/9/07, Stephen Wilcox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
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 program
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 ask you to
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
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
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
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
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
probably tell, but
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
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
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don
Welch, Merit Network
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 4:58 PM
Cc: nanog-futures@merit.edu
Subject: Re: 2 meetings / budgets [Re: mlc files formal
complaint against me]
I've been involved with NANOG for over a year now. I have formed my
opinions on how well things
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 a
dunce cap on
irrelevant to the mlc action, but ...
as someone just pointed out to me, i was confusing two ex-ceos of qwest,
joe nacchio, who is a convicted felon, with sol trujillo, who is not,
but is currently the ceo of telstra.
apologies.
randy
Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
no sc hat at all
the appended message earned me a formal complaint from the mlc.
No, it did not. It earned you a polite request from Marty to show
some leadership and not engage in off-topic personal sniping on the
list. When you asked if it was a
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 03:31:10PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
no sc hat at all
the appended message earned me a formal complaint from the mlc. they
have accused me of making a personal attack. of course, joe nacchio
(apologies for misspelling at first), is a very well known public
figure;
http://rip.psg.com/~randy/mlc-complaint.mbox
Randy Bush wrote:
no sc hat at all
I did not think at the time that, that particular message contributed
much to the general tenor of the discussion. The implication I derived
was not that joe nacchio was a felon, we all know this (19 counts of
insider trading), but that .au is still a penal
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 12:11:17PM +0100, Stephen Wilcox wrote:
[snip]
i guess it could be 'character assassination' or 'political' which
are both against the AUP
[mild tangent: How can the blanket label of political be
off-topic given the serious time and energy spent with both
informed and
On 10/8/07, Joe Provo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 12:11:17PM +0100, Stephen Wilcox wrote:
[snip]
i guess it could be 'character assassination' or 'political' which
are both against the AUP
[mild tangent: How can the blanket label of political be
off-topic given the
On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 16:24 +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
http://rip.psg.com/~randy/mlc-complaint.mbox
Can't we all just get along.
Look, Randy's comment was a bit gruff (although deeply humorous to quite
a few folks). Considering it was made at 2AM I'd have to say that it's
not as bad as I've
On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 05:54 +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
Jim Popovitch wrote:
On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 16:24 +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
Considering it was made at 2AM
i am in tokyo
randy
:-) well, I read your emails in Atlanta at 2am and your late-night
attitude really shows through even though
[ snip, nobody cares about Telstra or the embedded baiting ]
if it was just marty being on a piss off about me, then no big deal; i
can handle marty (and certainly am in no position to abuse him for being
hot-headed).
Hot-headed for what reason? Because you are off topic as usual? Not
quite.
On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 18:46 -0400, Martin Hannigan wrote:
Just so we're clear, you will continue to see requests to adapt to the
AUP wrt to being on topic. If you don't like that, you can certainly
seek to have me thrown off the MLC. In fact, I encourage it. :-)
I think that is Randy's
Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
when i asked if it was formal, assuming it was so because it had been
cc:d to the sc ($deity knows why), rob said yes it could be taken that way.
I'm sorry that you misunderstood my communication; obviously I should
have laid it out more carefully. The
Jim Popovitch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 18:46 -0400, Martin Hannigan wrote:
Just so we're clear, you will continue to see requests to adapt to the
AUP wrt to being on topic. If you don't like that, you can certainly
seek to have me thrown off the MLC. In fact, I
Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
but i am certainly guilty of terseness and obscurity, as well as
confusing two ex-cseo of qwest. my apologies.
...
this would have been very clear as to the formality of the message, and
have allowed discussion and explantation.
Matthew 7:5
On 10/8/07, Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just so we're clear, you will continue to see requests to adapt to
the AUP wrt to being on topic.
your complaint to me was not about topic, but rather about ad homina.
to quote
And as you know, the NANOG AUP specifically discourages
On 10/8/07, Jim Popovitch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 18:46 -0400, Martin Hannigan wrote:
Just so we're clear, you will continue to see requests to adapt to the
AUP wrt to being on topic. If you don't like that, you can certainly
seek to have me thrown off the MLC. In
Martin Hannigan wrote:
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 hear about and act
On 10/9/07, vijay gill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/8/07, Joel Jaeggli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin Hannigan wrote:
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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- -- 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 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
offhand remark about a convicted felon. I
I suggest with the best intention possible that marty unwad his shorts
and the rest of us STFU and GBTW.
I'll add others to the list, but yes, in the simplest possible terms, this
thread was a ridiculous waste of time of everyone involved.
Well, Vijay can KMA, but point taken. My shorts
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I realized after I sent that message that it was unfair of me
to make statements without properly characterizing them with
context.
Let me say this: I believe NANOG has very much lost touch with the
base of it's constituency.
For instance: I made an
50 matches
Mail list logo
