Matt, I find it ironic that someone with such an objection to personal attacks would throw out one like this: *"I'm sorry Dan, but this sort of "old boys network" attitude has gone on for way too long in NANOG. As a board member, it would be nice to see a commitment to improving this situation. Thank you."*
Luckily, I'm ok without a safe space. ;) Clearly this is a decision for the PC - the Board doesn't decide this stuff, as I think you know. But in my personal capacity, I'm against censoring presentation to please vendors or sponsors: No special pleadings because you give money to NANOG. Yeah, censoring is a strong word. That's because its a bad thing. Dan On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 12:30 PM Matt Peterson <m...@peterson.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Daniel Golding <dgold...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> >> 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. >> > > Censorship is a strong word and one I would also not be in favor of too > (in the generic sense). What is concerning is when bashing is framed as > personal attack. A possible PC revision could have been 1) add more flavor > of dominate US IXP's (of all organization structures) - as that > geographical focus makes more sense for NANOG 2) don't list specific > organizations by name, but instead just list their organization structure > and a random identifier. > > >> 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. >> > > As noted earlier in the thread, the specific presentation isn't my > interest here - I actually enjoyed the talk and agree with many of the > points stated. What made me uncomfortable was peer IXP's feeling > uncomfortable and even a college immersion participant asking "is NANOG > always such a threatening environment?". > > Organizations and companies are members of our greater community, even if > they don't technically have a membership role. At this morning's membership > meeting - it was restated that NANOG is highly dependent on sponsorships > (rarely do we see such financial contributions from individuals that would > be enough to support NANOG). It would be a shame to loose that income > source when only minor content guidelines could be made. > > >> 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. > > > I'm sorry Dan, but this sort of "old boys network" attitude has gone on > for way too long in NANOG. I've already received 13 off list responses > "well said", "nicely done", "finally a reality check", etc. I'm not at all > suggesting bashing should go away, as you note - that is a paramount > feature of NANOG. Instead the question is when is it appropriate to shame > members of the industry and how do we frame that in an professional manner > (I realize you may have challenges in such a demonstration) . > > Clearly a disconnect exists between some members and some board / PC > members. As a board member, it would be nice to see a commitment to > improving this situation. Thank you. >
