NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

Tue Jun 14 16:20:33 UTC 2016

John,

We've had this for years. https://www.nanog.org/governance/attendance

If you notice similarities - they are intentional.

If you notice differences - NANOG has always had a higher threshold for a
frank exchange of views between participants. We have no desire to stifle
that.

Dan

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 11:18 AM Daniel Golding <dgolding at gmail.com> wrote:

> I'd suggest that this is not an operation discussion and should be moved
> to the NANOG Membership list.
>
> I don't see any violation of the presentation guidelines. Also, the day we
> decide to censor ourselves to avoid offending vendors is the end of my
> involvement in NANOG - and I suspect that is the case for many others.
>
> Matt is being coy, for some reason. He didn't like Dave Temkin's talk
> about IXP costs. I listened very carefully and did not hear any specific
> members or people targeted - only organizations and companies.
>
> NANOG is not and has never been a "safe space" for sponsors or
> organizations that exist in the network space. It never should be. If LINX
> or AMSIX or anyone else didn't like what was said, they should have rocked
> the mic (which they did!) and they should come to the next NANOG and
> present a counterpoint.
>
> Daniel Golding
> (speaking in my personal capacity)
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 11:10 AM Ca By <cb.list6 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>