[190381] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Fri Jul 1 13:08:40 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAObxEFBR5XGYhomFBYv2Kp-TNNyOsL+nEOwRQB4h7FFkQyRUpg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 10:08:35 -0700
To: Rick Astley <jnanog@gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
I have to agree with Rick here.
Owen
> On Jun 29, 2016, at 22:43 , Rick Astley <jnanog@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> I have to agree with Dan in that even if you disagreed with the talk =
you
> have to agree that it probably spawned relevant discussion and =
reflection
> (both on and off list). I would hate to see a move to ideas and =
discussions
> that are chosen simply for offending the fewest people. Another sort =
of
> similar critique aimed at large routing vendors was "Help! My big =
expensive
> router is really expensive" at NANOG 60 in Atlanta. Perhaps the =
critiques
> were seen as more constructive and I don't remember the same backlash =
after
> the talk but I found both talks and various discussions that followed
> insightful.
>=20
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Daniel Golding <dgolding@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>=20
>> Hmm - as far as whether this was a good or bad NANOG =
presentation...this is
>> some of the best discussion I've seen on list in a while. There is a =
frank
>> exchange of views between many different parties. This may result in =
some
>> follow-up presentations at future NANOGs by IXP operators (please!).
>>=20
>> Seems that, whether you agree with Dave or not, it was successful. It =
also
>> seems that the IXP operators who came under the most criticism have =
reacted
>> with a lot of professionalism and maturity. Other IXP operators have
>> reacted pretty poorly, which is ironic.
>>=20
>> Dan
>>=20
