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 disa
I'm curious, why doesn't anyone mention the real reason SC and PC is so
concerned with wbn's presentation?
The word on the street is that Ted is the sole complainer, who took offense
at his employer's logo being displayed during the BOF and has threatened to
invoke the lawyers unless bill is broug
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 maili
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
--- 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-d
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
William Norton wrote:
> 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
>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
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 taki
