Thank you, that's great feedback and great ideas. Regards, -Dave
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 9:51 PM, John Kemp <k...@network-services.uoregon.edu > wrote: > > I would like to see the session continue in some form. > Social was close to good. > > The peering presentations weren't as useful to me personally. > They sometimes made the time for actual peering conversations > too short. > > The extra food and drinks were not important to me personally. > > ... > > Perhaps an "extended break" 45 minutes, with typical > break food, and no presentations. Or if you want, a *silent* > rolling slide show on a screen, with 1-slide per submitter, > for peering news items or general peering requests... > > Cheaper... quieter... shorter... But having all the people > in the same room at the same time for the same purpose, usually > pretty useful. > > 2 cents, > John Kemp > > > On 2/6/17 9:17 PM, Dave Temkin wrote: > > Hi Bob, > > > > This was inadvertent and we will bring this back for NANOG 70. > > > > Regards, > > > > -Dave > > > > On Feb 6, 2017, 6:58 PM -0500, Bob Evans <b...@fiberinternetcenter.com>, > wrote: > >> I suggest in the future NOT to get rid of something because a new method > >> is attempted. I.E nanog had a nice method of identifying potential and > >> existing peers with a simple green dot at registration to indicate an > >> individual was involved with BGP in their company. That went away and > >> today there is nothing. Cost of implementation was less than 5 dollars > at > >> any office supply retailer. > >> > >> Just a thought. > >> > >> Thank You > >> Bob Evans > >> CTO > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> The Peering Personals has been shelved while we try to figure out a > better > >>> option. > >>> > >>> There was no peering content submitted to the Program Committee that > >>> justified a separate track, and so they chose to include the content in > >>> the general session throughout the program. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> > >>> -Dave > >>> > >>> On Feb 6, 2017, 8:12 AM -0500, Matthew Petach <mpet...@netflight.com>, > >>> wrote: > >>>> I'm squinting at the Guidebook for NANOG69, > >>>> and I don't seem to see any peering BOF or > >>>> peering social this time around. Am I being > >>>> blind again, and it's on the agenda somewhere > >>>> but I'm just overlooking it? > >>>> Pointers in the right direction would be appreciated. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks! :) > >>>> > >>>> Matt > >>> > >> > >> > >
