NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

Tue Jun 14 16:30:11 UTC 2016

"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. "

One of the least savory aspects of the technical press and industry analyst
worlds is something called pre-pub review. That's where big vendors pay you
to see stuff before its printed, so they can attempt to censor it.  It
happens all the time, and you never know about it.

Sharing people's decks with vendors before they are presented might be a
nice thing for the presenter to do, but its not appropriate for the NANOG
organization.

Dan

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 11:27 AM William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

> 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 mentioned (say in the case of a unpublished vulnerability) - how is a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/>
>