[Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?

Joe Provo nanog-fut at rsuc.gweep.net
Sun Feb 24 14:44:16 UTC 2008


On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 03:12:55AM -0600, Chris Malayter wrote:
> Greetings All,
> 
> What's the deal with the Peering BOF for NY?  I've heard rumors 
> running wild that we're not going to have one, we're going to have 
> one but Bill isn't going to run it, to we're moving to a peering 
> track and a track bases system.

As far as I know, the PC hasn't met to discuss the agenda for 43; 
if anyone has been other than drumming up talks, they are likely the 
ones jumping the gun. I would challenge anyone to look at the agenda 
just passed, past ones with multipart BoFs and Tutorials, et al and 
not see tracks.  Other than the word (and implied more space), what 
is so scary about 'tracks'? (no, that's a serious question)

[snip]
> If nothing else, I would imagine that the numbers continuing to grow 
> over time should show that the interest has not been lost, and that 
> the people like the format and the effort that Bill puts into it.

I don't think any suggestion of more times and formal slot on an 
agenda is anything but indication there is a great deal of support 
for peering items, but the surveys provide direct feedback.  The 
headcount in the room (170+ this go round) IMO speak to needing more 
resources than a small ad-hoc bof room.  When a BoF demonstrates
such strong traction as the many year recurring, many hour consuming
security and peering bofs, perhaps the legacy sentiment of past PCs 
need to be shrugged off and these be allowed to 'grow up' to larger
agenda space.

> If the PC is going to axe the BOF, I would like some transparency 
> and explantion to the rest of us as to the rationelle so we can have 
> it in the public forum for debate.

I think anyone who thinks that "review of standing program elements 
like the rest of the program" is the same as "axing" anything needs 
their head examined.  If people don't want to be transparent and 
share what they want to present to the PC, what puts them above the
rest of the presenters?  Arbitrary program selection was one of the 
pre-open-process PC we all wanted to move away from, right?

Joe, speaking for himself, and thinking the program submission tool 
     is open so anyone interested in getting content submitted for 
     NANOG 43 certainly can!
 
-- 
             RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE



More information about the Nanog-futures mailing list