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

[Daniel Golding <dgolding () gmail com>]

I'd suggest that this is not an operation discussion and should be moved to
the NANOG Membership list.

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.

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.

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.

Daniel Golding
(speaking in my personal capacity)




On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 11:10 AM Ca By <cb.list6 () gmail com> wrote:

> 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