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

Joel Jaeggli joelja at bogus.com
Sun Feb 24 17:57:08 UTC 2008


Chris Malayter wrote:
> Hey Joe,
> 
> Would you ask the PC to release the minutes from the SJC nanog and any 
> meeting since.

Given that the pc last met on tuesday at lunch, I think the minutes when 
released will prove to be a poor source the sort information you're 
looking for.

What you liked, didn't like or would like to see on the program on the 
future would be highly appreciated. I gather you like to peering bof. 
What would you do to take to to the next level? Failing that, are their 
related communities of interest that need similar attention?

> Thanks,
> 
> -Chris
> 
> 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)
>>
>> [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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Nanog-futures mailing list
>> Nanog-futures at nanog.org
>> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Nanog-futures mailing list
> Nanog-futures at nanog.org
> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
> 




More information about the Nanog-futures mailing list