NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

Tue Jun 14 15:50:24 UTC 2016

On Tue 2016-Jun-14 10:12:10 -0500, 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mentioned (say in the case of a unpublished vulnerability) - how is a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?

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?

>--Matt

-- 
Hugo Slabbert       | email, xmpp/jabber: hugo at slabnet.com
pgp key: B178313E   | also on Signal
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20160614/e1114af6/attachment.sig>