NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

Tue Jun 14 16:32:07 UTC 2016

Were they truly targeted in a hurtful manner, or just reprimanded for doing
something stupid?

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Matt Peterson <matt at peterson.org> 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 mentioned (say in the case of a unpublished vulnerability) - how is a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?
>
> --Matt
>