[190048] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Possamai Rafael via NANOG)
Tue Jun 14 12:33:31 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <CAFN0R26s22kpK_97WtKBbG-iNUkzpn2pZ24kWMsJih=+-WSKQg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 11:32:07 -0500
To: Matt Peterson <matt@peterson.org>
From: Possamai Rafael via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Reply-To: Possamai Rafael <rafael@e2wsolutions.com>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Were they truly targeted in a hurtful manner, or just reprimanded for doing
something stupid?
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Matt Peterson <matt@peterson.org> 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 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 mentioned (say in the case of a unpublished vulnerability) - how is a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?
>
> --Matt
>
