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

Patrick W. Gilmore patrick at ianai.net
Mon Feb 25 01:00:21 UTC 2008

On Feb 24, 2008, at 12:57 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> Chris Malayter wrote:

>> Would you ask the PC to release the minutes from the SJC nanog and  
>> any
>> meeting since.
> Given that the pc last met on tuesday at lunch, I think the minutes  
> when
> released will prove to be a poor source the sort information you're
> looking for.

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.

The question is where we stand in the process.

If the PC does not have an official stance, then we should all stop  
speculating until there is an official stance or (hopefully) an  
official request for input from the community.

If the PC has an official stance, then the community needs to hear it  

Either way, gossiping on a mailing list is not the right way.  We had  
a revolution, let's follow our own rules.  As Randy like to proclaim  
every 14 ms, let's have some transparency.  What was said, why was it  
said, and what decisions were made?

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


More information about the Nanog-futures mailing list