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

[Philip Smith]

Hi Patrick,

Patrick W. Gilmore said the following on 25/2/08 11:00:
>
> Let's stop dancing around the issue.  There was discussion regarding  
> the Peering BoF amongst the SC & PC.  There is no reason to hide this  
> fact - just the opposite.  And there were at least some provisional  
> outcomes from those discussions.  I am unclear on why those decisions  
> are not being announced to the community.

Yes, there was a brief discussion at the SC meeting on Wednesday - the 
PC Chair participates on the SC as an ex-officio member.

(The minutes have just been passed on to Merit for publication - they 
will be at http://www.nanog.org/sc.minutes08.html, findable from the 
NANOG website home page under General Info -> Steering Committee.)

We noted that complaints had been received about a particular item in 
the Peering BoF, and agreed that the PC should discuss closer review of 
the BoF content with the BoF organisers.

We also discussed in general about BoFs that have become a fixture in 
the programme as opposed to being a once or twice occurrence (which is 
the more normal understanding of BoFs, I'd say). Both the Peering and 
Security BoFs have been a long term and an incredibly valuable part of 
NANOG for many years, so we felt that giving them the true recognition 
they deserved as an integral part of the programme would be something 
worth exploring moving forwards. And of course, being part of the 
programme would mean following the same processes for content review as 
the rest of the NANOG programme.

I should mention, as an FYI, that both Peering and Security BoFs have 
been integral part of APRICOT for some time. Apart from the plenary 
session, APRICOT has parallel tracks (we call them streams). The 
organisers of both tracks taking the lead in organising their content in 
conjunction with the APRICOT PC. So formalising the long running BoFs at 
NANOG in a similar way should really not be seen as a backward step.

> Either way, gossiping on a mailing list is not the right way.

Certainly the rumour mill has been busy...

> SC / PC members, please step up, so we can all go back to arguing over  
> leaking deaggs. :)

Hopefully I've helped clarify. Now let's go back to talking about 
leaking prefixes... :-)

philip
SC Chair
--