[190042] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ca By)
Tue Jun 14 12:09:03 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <AEEA2158-B269-485C-B384-A3B48E67086A@ianai.net>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 09:08:58 -0700
From: Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>
To: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Tuesday, June 14, 2016, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net> wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2016, at 11:50 AM, Hugo Slabbert <hugo@slabnet.com
> <javascript:;>> 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 t=
he
> >> spirit of NANOG, but instead a personal opinion piece. While no specif=
ic
> >> 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 conte=
nt
> >> 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 mentioned (say in the case of a unpublished vulnerability) - how is a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
> =E2=80=9Cthat was a good preso=E2=80=9D / =E2=80=9Cno it wasn=E2=80=99t!!=
=E2=80=9D 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
>
>
>
