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

[Daniel Golding <dgolding () gmail com>]

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 <matt () peterson org> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Daniel Golding <dgolding () 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.