NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

Tue Jun 14 16:08:58 UTC 2016

On Tuesday, June 14, 2016, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick at ianai.net> wrote:

> On Jun 14, 2016, at 11:50 AM, Hugo Slabbert <hugo at slabnet.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > On Tue 2016-Jun-14 10:12:10 -0500, Matt Peterson <matt at peterson.org
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> >> This week at NANOG67, a presentation was given early on that did not
> >> reflect well for our community at large. Regardless of the content or
> >> accuracy of the data presented (not the intention of this thread),
> specific
> >> members of the community (some of which are sponsors) were clearly
> targeted
> >> in a hurtful manner. The delivery of the content did not seem within the
> >> spirit of NANOG, but instead a personal opinion piece. While no specific
> >> rules of the speaking guidelines
> >> <https://www.nanog.org/meetings/presentation/guidelines> were likely
> >> broken, this does bring up a point of where the acceptable threshold
> exists
> >> (if at all). To be abundantly clear - I have nothing against the content
> >> itself, the presenter, the PC's choice of allowing this talk, etc. - I
> only
> >> wish to clarify if our guidelines need modernization.
> >>
> >> As a community, how do we provide constructive criticism to industry
> >> suppliers (that may also be fellow competitors, members, and/or
> suppliers)?
> >> For example, router vendors are routinely compared without specific
> names
> >> mentioned (say in the case of a unpublished vulnerability) - how is a
> >> service provider any different?
> >
> > I understand the discretion involved in your question, but could we
> clarify exactly what presentation is being discussed so those of us who
> were not present at NANOG67 can also participate in an informed way?
>
> I personally think the meta-question Matt asked is more important than
> opinions on a specific presentation. Plus I worry about devolving into a
> “that was a good preso” / “no it wasn’t!!” flamefest.
>
>
Harassment policy is a good idea

 https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/ietf-anti-harassment-policy.html

Walking on eggshells because sponsors don't appreciate the message and find
posting pictures of their dance parties while discussing
non-profit financials is ... Or is that a different subtweet?

We are talking about dnssec?

To that end, let a million flowers bloom.

It was a good relevant talk.

Regards,
C&J

--
> TTFN,
> patrick
>
>
>