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 <m...@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 mentioned (say in the case of a unpublished vulnerability) - how is a 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 >
