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

[Richard A Steenbergen]

On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 09:28:06AM +1000, Philip Smith wrote:
> Richard A Steenbergen said the following on 25/2/08 08:21:
> >
> > 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.
> 
> Just a small comment. Bill's service to the community as an SC member 
> completed in October last year.

Ah, indeed, I should be paying more attention to these things. :P At any 
rate the point remains basically the same, we shouldn't be creating 
exemptions which look like favoritism.

Also note that I mean absolutely no disrespect to Bill's contributions to 
both the SC and the Peering BOF throughout the years. He has done an 
excellent job on all fronts, and is a valued contributor to the NANOG 
community, but I don't think that means we should be making special 
exemptions to the normal PC process for him or anyone else. My comments 
were about fairness and transparency in the process, not saying that Bill 
shouldn't continue to be involved with the Peering BOF or any other 
peering events. If that sentiment is in any way associated the previously 
mentioned "rumors" that there won't be a peering BOF or that Bill won't be 
involved, I would call that a misinterpretation.

My personal opinions at any rate.

-- 
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)