Re: [Nanog-futures] Moving Forward - What kind of NANOG do we want?
On Jul 2, 2010, at 10:59 AM, Sean Figgins wrote: Andy Davidson wrote: A good quality meeting 'Fringe' is a defining characteristic of a mature community. Let it happen. The fringe is the test-bed for stuff too crazy or early for the formal agenda. Promote this ad-hoc stuff on the nanog site. A good fringe will encourage more long-term attendees and attendee loyalty ( == revenue) without the program co-ordinators having to do more work. I think that you need to be careful of advertising or promoting this. While it may be expected and accepted that these occur at the meeting, when trying to pitch to your company to send you to a technical conference, it becomes harder to get them to cough up the money when they see it as a large party. NANOG used to be pretty cheap, but from the recent thread, I see that is is now $600 to attend, plus whatever travel costs. At a time where many companies are cutting things like reimbursement (or providing) cell phone and home internet access for their technical staff, sending staff to a party seems out of line. I am intentionally staying out of the back forth so that others do not think I am trying to influence things. However, I wanted to add an objective fact here since no one else seems to have mentioned it. The $600 is only the walk-up fee. NANOG is less if you register earlier, as little as $450. As for whether that is expensive or not, I encourage readers to research other conferences and compare for themselves. -- TTFN, patrick ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Moving Forward - What kind of NANOG do we want?
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: The $600 is only the walk-up fee. NANOG is less if you register earlier, as little as $450. As for whether that is expensive or not, I encourage readers to research other conferences and compare for themselves. Thanks for the clarification. I remembered it being $450 before, but I know costs keep going up and up and I would not be surprised if NANOG had to go up to keep up with rising costs. Considering that om companies won't pay for NANOG, they won't pay for the more expensive conferences either. At least not for their technical staff. VPs often get to go to much more expensive conferences... -Sean ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Moving Forward - What kind of NANOG do we want?
On 04.07.10 1:27, joel jaeggli wrote: On 2010-07-03 13:08, Andy Davidson wrote: On 3 Jul 2010, at 04:29, Simon Lyall wrote: Unless people serious intended for the organisation to have regular [1] meetings outside of North America (which I doubt) No, don't. The rest of the world already has $regionNOG. If Nanog becaome WorldNOG, someone would make, err, NANOG again. Part of the reason that the rest of the world that *nog is because people came to nanog found the format useful and made it their own, or because nanog participants went there and helped set them up. strange for me - as two or three years ago when I first time attended NANOG - I was first and last guy from Russia and - in principle - from exSU who attended NANOG (excapt emigrants) - it doesn't means that nobody on the list - but nanog image - like flaming list... regards, Dima we can see from the number of new attendees we get everytime we have a meeting that geogrphic proximity plays heavy role in the utility of nogs. Andy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Moving Forward - What kind of NANOG do we want?
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 11:37 PM, Jay Hennigan j...@west.net wrote: On 7/2/10 8:29 PM, Simon Lyall wrote: Unless people serious intended for the organisation to have regular [1] meetings outside of North America (which I doubt) then it should retain the current general name and focus. [1] - At least 50% in Europe, Asia, ROW , not one every 5 years in Mexico. [1a] Mexico is part of North America so that doesn't count as outside. no. only citizens of the united states and canada consider mexico to be part of north america. mexicans consider north america to begin at the rio bravo where the united states start. they consider mexico to be either part of mesoamerica or simply to be mexico. mexicans refer to americans and canadians as 'norteamericanos' explicitly identifying it as a difference. the 'NAFTA' (north american free trade agreement) in english is simply the 'Tratado de Libre Commercio' (Free Trade Agreement) in spanish. this is not to say that mexico can't be more included in nanog activities in the future, but simply to point out this difference in perception. please resume all other quibbling. :-) t. -- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - j...@impulse.net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Moving Forward - What kind of NANOG do we want?
On 3 Jul 2010, at 04:29, Simon Lyall wrote: Unless people serious intended for the organisation to have regular [1] meetings outside of North America (which I doubt) No, don't. The rest of the world already has $regionNOG. If Nanog becaome WorldNOG, someone would make, err, NANOG again. Andy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Moving Forward - What kind of NANOG do we want?
On 1 Jul 2010, at 17:59, William Norton wrote: 1) We started seeing folks having suite parties, [...] 2) We started seeing people quietly passing out logo'd and funny t-shirts, [...] 4) tours of data centers that don't sponsor NANOG but are local (we geeks like these things), These are really the same things. A good quality meeting 'Fringe' is a defining characteristic of a mature community. Let it happen. The fringe is the test-bed for stuff too crazy or early for the formal agenda. Promote this ad-hoc stuff on the nanog site. A good fringe will encourage more long-term attendees and attendee loyalty ( == revenue) without the program co-ordinators having to do more work. Andy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Moving Forward - What kind of NANOG do we want?
On Thu, 1 Jul 2010, Daniel Golding wrote: The way forward is to have sharp cut-off from having quasi-professional meetings and transition into having real events. Real events have real sponsorship models, not a few bucks for a break or a beer and gear. Real events are planned a year in advance, not a few months. Real events don't require hosts to dedicate a dozen staff members - they can just write a check. I usually find myself agreeing completely with Dan in these future of NANOG discussions, but the hard line on sponsorship makes me uncomfortable. I've certainly seen real events that function the way Dan describes. ISPCon comes to mind. I'm sure the model makes a lot of sense for their for-profit organizers, but for attendees it tends to put up a lot of barriers and prevent the sort of freewheeling culture that, for me, makes NANOG and the other less formal operator meetings so useful. NANOG, or NewNOG, or whatever it ends up being called, needs to bring in enough money to keep the organization running. It doesn't need to -- and as a non-profit it probably legally can't -- run a big surplus. Assuming we can make ends meet, I'd hate to prioritize money over creativity. -Steve ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Moving Forward - What kind of NANOG do we want?
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Scott Weeks sur...@mauigateway.com wrote: --- s...@gibbard.org wrote: NANOG, or NewNOG, or whatever it ends up being called, -- Has that already been decided? It's most certainly not NA operators only. GNOG? (global) scott Gadi Evron actually had suggested that some number of years ago. :) Best, -M ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Moving Forward - What kind of NANOG do we want?
--- hanni...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Scott Weeks sur...@mauigateway.com wrote: --- s...@gibbard.org wrote: NANOG, or NewNOG, or whatever it ends up being called, -- Has that already been decided? It's most certainly not NA operators only. GNOG? (global) : Gadi Evron actually had suggested that some number of years ago. :) Me, too. Sort of. ;-) Back in 2004. http://www.mail-archive.com/na...@merit.edu/msg26005.html Then again in 2006: http://www.mail-archive.com/na...@merit.edu/msg45644.html scott ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Moving Forward - What kind of NANOG do we want?
On 7/2/10 1:37 PM, Michael Dillon wrote: The intent coming into the change was to move forward with a transition of NANOG, not create a new organization with a different mandate. The NANOG group mirrors similar groups in other regions and is focused primarily on serving the North American operator community, Agreed. You are wrong there. The intent is now and has always been to serve the *INTERNET* operations community. The INTERNET is global. NANOG meetings always have participants and speakers from outside of North America. I suggest that we first get up to speed with continuity of what we have been in the past before attempting to take over the world. Yes, there have been and I expect will be in the future participants and speakers from outside North America. Just as North Americans attend and speak at other regional groups. That doesn't change the focus of the group. This transition is going to be difficult enough without changing the fundamental purpose of the organization. -- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - j...@impulse.net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Moving Forward - What kind of NANOG do we want?
Le vendredi 02 juillet 2010 à 14:12 -0700, Scott Weeks a écrit : --- hanni...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Scott Weeks sur...@mauigateway.com wrote: --- s...@gibbard.org wrote: NANOG, or NewNOG, or whatever it ends up being called, -- Has that already been decided? It's most certainly not NA operators only. GNOG? (global) : Gadi Evron actually had suggested that some number of years ago. :) Me, too. Sort of. ;-) Back in 2004. http://www.mail-archive.com/na...@merit.edu/msg26005.html Then again in 2006: http://www.mail-archive.com/na...@merit.edu/msg45644.html Good posts, good points, no less relevant today ;) mh scott ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures -- michael hallgren, mh2198-ripe ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Moving Forward - What kind of NANOG do we want?
Unless people serious intended for the organisation to have regular [1] meetings outside of North America (which I doubt) then it should retain the current general name and focus. why? we hove the world series! :) hubris is not a quality we lack. randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Moving Forward - What kind of NANOG do we want?
On 7/2/10 8:29 PM, Simon Lyall wrote: Unless people serious intended for the organisation to have regular [1] meetings outside of North America (which I doubt) then it should retain the current general name and focus. [1] - At least 50% in Europe, Asia, ROW , not one every 5 years in Mexico. [1a] Mexico is part of North America so that doesn't count as outside. -- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - j...@impulse.net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Moving Forward - What kind of NANOG do we want?
This is a very long email, so I can't reply to all of it, but here's a try. In terms of room parties - at regular conferences, those are called Hospitality Suites and sponsors pay for the privilege of having them. Or, the privilege is inherited as part of a high-lvel sponsorship. Either way. (I once got yelled at by Susan Harris for having one of these.) The solution is not to allow them, or to forbid them, but to provide a mechanism to have them with the organization getting a cut. That happens in two ways - you need to be a sponsor of a certain level to have the suite, and the food and beverage counts towards our FB minimum. The way forward is to have sharp cut-off from having quasi-professional meetings and transition into having real events. Real events have real sponsorship models, not a few bucks for a break or a beer and gear. Real events are planned a year in advance, not a few months. Real events don't require hosts to dedicate a dozen staff members - they can just write a check. Betty did a very good job of getting us on this path. That was as opposed to Susan who was reflexively against anything that had the foul odor of capitalist enterprise. We need to continue to professionalize as the organization evolves. The idea of non-sponsors handing out schwag is the same. If we had a real sponsorship model, we could say only Gold sponsors get to do that, sorry. Makes life easier for vendors, attendees, and organizers. As far as crashers - at most conferences, there is an invisible line around the sessions themselves. Sometimes, there is security. Common areas are generally ok for crashers, but sessions, meals, and receptions are not. Commercialization and exploitation of BOFs has been going on forever. Many folks have used the Peering BOF to promote other events, collect data, push datacenter properties - whatever. There's always a fine line, and you know you have crossed it when you get your ass handed to you by someone you respect. It has happened to me, and I learned from it. Obviously, repeat offenders shouldn't be on the agenda. - Dan On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 12:59 PM, William Norton bill.nor...@gmail.com wrote: I would actually like to steer this to a NANOG-Future topic -- what kind of NANOG do we want to have? Sorry this is a little long, but I wanted to share some data points and context. An organization is defined by how it behaves. Just to provide a little historical context and data for the discussion here... When I was chairing NANOG in the early days, we tried a bunch of new things, including beer-n-gear. We pretty much had to use the hotel services and catering - the costs were pretty high but the sponsors seemed to have the marketing money to get in front of the attendees. Then we started seeing more quasi-commercial activities we hadn't seen so much in the gov't-sponsored NSFNET days : 1) We started seeing folks having suite parties, in a couple cases these competed with the agenda or with the sponsored socials or BOFs. When I asked about their motivation, just to understand why, the answers for having these parties instead of participating in beer-n-gear were varied but seemed centered around the cost - that their little gathering was maybe one-tenth the cost of participating in beer-n-gear and everyone seemed to have a better time in this informal albeit cramped environment. To me, these parties felt more like a college parties vs. a formal event, and I personally liked the feel of these parties too. We (the NANOG team at Merit) had to decide how to deal with this - (and newNOG should decide its attitudes on these types of things as well as it defines its culture). We had really three options: a) do we play hard ball somehow to prevent the parties? The hotel didn't like them either as they didn't generate any $ for them. b) Or let it slide by quietly ignoring (not condoning) the behavior? c) Or do we enjoy the party with the rest of the participants? What actually happened was that people Merit folks were simply not invited to these parties for fear of what their attitude toward the party could be. There was a kind of hope we don't get caught on their side and our (personal) desire to socialize (be invited to the party) like everyone else while (Merit NANOG hat) making sure events didn't clash and the beer-n-gear sponsors didn't bail on the formal events. I think during my stead we slide towards enjoying the parties that we heard about, and a sort of *unwritten rule* emerged that the parties shouldn't clash with the scheduled agenda events. There was another kind of awkwardness as folks wanted to not clash, but didn't know when things occurred, so these unauthorized party organizers awkwardly had to keep checking the agenda to make sure their little parties didn't clash while not tipping their hat to Merit that they were doing something unsanctioned here. Even with this awkwardness,
Re: [Nanog-futures] Moving Forward - What kind of NANOG do we want?
Betty did a very good job of getting us on this path. That was as opposed to Susan who was reflexively against anything that had the foul odor of capitalist enterprise. We need to continue to professionalize as the organization evolves. Agreed. That was always one of the dimensions of the NANOG debate - commercial vs. the original academic/research roots. I also believe we err'd too far on the conservative side of commercializing NANOG. imiho, there has been slow and cautious movement from our academic non-commercial roots toward more industry focus. one reason it has been slow is because there's no reversing direction if we think we have gone too far. randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Moving Forward - What kind of NANOG do we want?
Well, there is one bright line that (I think) everyone can agree with - a permanent and hard separation of sponsorship and program. To the point where people who handle the sponsorships must not be on the program committee and vice-versa. Pay-for-play is fine at a certain sort of conference, but never for NANOG. - Dan On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: Betty did a very good job of getting us on this path. That was as opposed to Susan who was reflexively against anything that had the foul odor of capitalist enterprise. We need to continue to professionalize as the organization evolves. Agreed. That was always one of the dimensions of the NANOG debate - commercial vs. the original academic/research roots. I also believe we err'd too far on the conservative side of commercializing NANOG. imiho, there has been slow and cautious movement from our academic non-commercial roots toward more industry focus. one reason it has been slow is because there's no reversing direction if we think we have gone too far. randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Moving Forward - What kind of NANOG do we want?
I feel that that's a silly restriction to codify - you can't solicit sponsorships be on the PC... There's a reason why it's a program committee and not a dictatorship. People in this community tend to have a very easy time sniffing out bullshit. -Dave On 7/1/10 3:08 PM, Daniel Golding wrote: Well, there is one bright line that (I think) everyone can agree with - a permanent and hard separation of sponsorship and program. To the point where people who handle the sponsorships must not be on the program committee and vice-versa. Pay-for-play is fine at a certain sort of conference, but never for NANOG. - Dan On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Randy Bushra...@psg.com wrote: Betty did a very good job of getting us on this path. That was as opposed to Susan who was reflexively against anything that had the foul odor of capitalist enterprise. We need to continue to professionalize as the organization evolves. Agreed. That was always one of the dimensions of the NANOG debate - commercial vs. the original academic/research roots. I also believe we err'd too far on the conservative side of commercializing NANOG. imiho, there has been slow and cautious movement from our academic non-commercial roots toward more industry focus. one reason it has been slow is because there's no reversing direction if we think we have gone too far. randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
