John, We've had this for years. https://www.nanog.org/governance/attendance If you notice similarities - they are intentional. If you notice differences - NANOG has always had a higher threshold for a frank exchange of views between participants. We have no desire to stifle that. Dan On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 11:18 AM Daniel Golding <dgolding@gmail.com> wrote:
I'd suggest that this is not an operation discussion and should be moved to the NANOG Membership list.
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.
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.
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.
Daniel Golding (speaking in my personal capacity)
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 11:10 AM Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, June 14, 2016, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net> wrote:
On Tue 2016-Jun-14 10:12:10 -0500, Matt Peterson <matt@peterson.org <javascript:;>> 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
On Jun 14, 2016, at 11:50 AM, Hugo Slabbert <hugo@slabnet.com <javascript:;>> wrote: 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?
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.
Harassment policy is a good idea
https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/ietf-anti-harassment-policy.html
Walking on eggshells because sponsors don't appreciate the message and find posting pictures of their dance parties while discussing non-profit financials is ... Or is that a different subtweet?
We are talking about dnssec?
To that end, let a million flowers bloom.
It was a good relevant talk.
Regards, C&J
--
TTFN, patrick