[Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?
chris at terahertz.net
Sun Feb 24 17:03:02 UTC 2008
Would you ask the PC to release the minutes from the SJC nanog and any
On Sun, 24 Feb 2008, Joe Provo wrote:
> 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)
>> 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
> Nanog-futures mailing list
> Nanog-futures at nanog.org
More information about the Nanog-futures