Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

[Ca By <cb.list6 () gmail com>]

On Tuesday, June 14, 2016, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick () ianai net> wrote:

> On Jun 14, 2016, at 11:50 AM, Hugo Slabbert <hugo () slabnet com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > On Tue 2016-Jun-14 10:12:10 -0500, Matt Peterson <matt () peterson org
> <javascript:;>> 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 mentioned (say in the case of a unpublished vulnerability) - how is a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?
> >
> > I understand the discretion involved in your question, but could we
> clarify exactly what presentation is being discussed so those of us who
> were not present at NANOG67 can also participate in an informed way?
>
> I personally think the meta-question Matt asked is more important than
> opinions on a specific presentation. Plus I worry about devolving into a
> “that was a good preso” / “no it wasn’t!!” flamefest.
Harassment policy is a good idea

 https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/ietf-anti-harassment-policy.html

Walking on eggshells because sponsors don't appreciate the message and find
posting pictures of their dance parties while discussing
non-profit financials is ... Or is that a different subtweet?

We are talking about dnssec?

To that end, let a million flowers bloom.

It was a good relevant talk.

Regards,
C&J


--
> TTFN,
> patrick