Matt, I find it ironic that someone with such an objection to personal attacks would throw out one like this: *"I'm sorry Dan, but this sort of "old boys network" attitude has gone on for way too long in NANOG. As a board member, it would be nice to see a commitment to improving this situation. Thank you."* Luckily, I'm ok without a safe space. ;) Clearly this is a decision for the PC - the Board doesn't decide this stuff, as I think you know. But in my personal capacity, I'm against censoring presentation to please vendors or sponsors: No special pleadings because you give money to NANOG. Yeah, censoring is a strong word. That's because its a bad thing. Dan On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 12:30 PM Matt Peterson <matt@peterson.org> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Daniel Golding <dgolding@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't see any violation of the presentation guidelines. Also, the day we decide to censor ourselves to avoid offending vendors is the end of my involvement in NANOG - and I suspect that is the case for many others.
Censorship is a strong word and one I would also not be in favor of too (in the generic sense). What is concerning is when bashing is framed as personal attack. A possible PC revision could have been 1) add more flavor of dominate US IXP's (of all organization structures) - as that geographical focus makes more sense for NANOG 2) don't list specific organizations by name, but instead just list their organization structure and a random identifier.
Matt is being coy, for some reason. He didn't like Dave Temkin's talk about IXP costs. I listened very carefully and did not hear any specific members or people targeted - only organizations and companies.
As noted earlier in the thread, the specific presentation isn't my interest here - I actually enjoyed the talk and agree with many of the points stated. What made me uncomfortable was peer IXP's feeling uncomfortable and even a college immersion participant asking "is NANOG always such a threatening environment?".
Organizations and companies are members of our greater community, even if they don't technically have a membership role. At this morning's membership meeting - it was restated that NANOG is highly dependent on sponsorships (rarely do we see such financial contributions from individuals that would be enough to support NANOG). It would be a shame to loose that income source when only minor content guidelines could be made.
NANOG is not and has never been a "safe space" for sponsors or organizations that exist in the network space. It never should be. If LINX or AMSIX or anyone else didn't like what was said, they should have rocked the mic (which they did!) and they should come to the next NANOG and present a counterpoint.
I'm sorry Dan, but this sort of "old boys network" attitude has gone on for way too long in NANOG. I've already received 13 off list responses "well said", "nicely done", "finally a reality check", etc. I'm not at all suggesting bashing should go away, as you note - that is a paramount feature of NANOG. Instead the question is when is it appropriate to shame members of the industry and how do we frame that in an professional manner (I realize you may have challenges in such a demonstration) .
Clearly a disconnect exists between some members and some board / PC members. As a board member, it would be nice to see a commitment to improving this situation. Thank you.