NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

Tue Jun 14 16:25:28 UTC 2016

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick at ianai.net> wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2016, at 11:50 AM, Hugo Slabbert <hugo at slabnet.com> wrote:
>> On Tue 2016-Jun-14 10:12:10 -0500, Matt Peterson <matt at peterson.org> wrote:
>>> 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 mentioned (say in the case of a unpublished vulnerability) - how is a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.

Hello,

A vague question can only yield a vague response. I have no clue what
presentation you're talking about nor any idea why anyone should be
upset about it.

IMO, their are four tiers of meritorious criticism:

1. Privately, directly with the vendor
2. On the mailing list naming no names
3. On the mailing list, name and shame
4. A call to carpet at a meeting

#1 is not always practical -- vendors make it increasingly hard to
contact them as customers, let alone as non-customers. Tried to reach
Google about a problem? Like, ever?

#2 should happen before #3. If #2 hasn't happened yet, #3 is rude.

#3 should happen before #4. If #3 hasn't happened yet, I think the
program committee should encourage a presenter to open a discussion on
the list first.

If #2 and #3 have happened, I think it's entirely appropriate to
publicly present the vendor's misbehavior and encourage the audience
to speak at the mic about how the vendor's error is harming them. It's
information the vendor needs to know to stay in business, it's
information the rest of us need to know when evaluating the vendor,
and in some cases its information the regulatory authorities need to
know when considering consumer protection.

That having been said, I see no reason why presentations naming a
vendor should be allowed to surprise the vendor. If a presentation
will name a particular vendor, that vendor should receive an advance
draft so that their reps are prepared to speak at the mic about their
intentions. Also, occurrences of #4 should be exactly as rare as
persistent vendor misbehavior.

Anyway, not a fan of dancing on eggshells. If something deserves to be
said, it should be said. If we can't take a little honesty, we're in
the wrong line of work.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>