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

[Richard A Steenbergen]

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.

Pretty odd rumors. Considering that a large portion of the PC has an 
extensive background in peering, and that all of the peering events are 
consistently popular among nanog attendees, I can't imagine why anyone 
would think that there is any kind of plan to eliminate them.

That said, I personally think it is pretty inappropriate for us to assume 
that there will always be a standing Peering BOF, and that it will always 
be hosted by Bill Norton, without any review of the content or other 
submissions on the subject. Every other piece of content which is 
presented at NANOG, including every other BOF, is selected and approved by 
the PC as per their job description. Making a special exemption for Bill 
Norton (a member of the SC, which elects the PC) could easily give the 
impression of undue favoritism to the outside world, and defeat all of the 
work that has been put into providing openness and transparency into the 
process.

As far as I am aware there hasn't been any official discussion regarding 
the peering events for NANOG 43 yet, but speaking strictly for myself 
here, my personal inclination would be to expand them and work to increase 
and improve their content, not the other way around.

-- 
Richard A Steenbergen <ras at e-gerbil.net>       http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)