nanog mailing list archives
Re: NANOG 90 Attendance?
From: Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 19:32:00 -0500
None of the conversation was about COVID protocols. Lowered in person attendance because of *individual concerns about health risks* was mentioned. The conversation then went sideways into public health policy and definitions, which absolutely doesn't belong on the list. On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 7:06 PM Paul Ebersman <list-nanog2 () dragon net> wrote:
mhammett> This seems more ideological and not overly appropriate for mhammett> NANOG. No, covid protocols are something that every conference that is serious about inclusion should be *very* concerned with. Saying that NANOG doesn't care about this says that NANOG can't be bothered to make an effort to make the conference safe for more folks. There's a reason I'm not there in person, even though I've attended for years, spoken there, and volunteered for multiple rounds on committees.
Current thread:
- NANOG 90 Attendance? Mike Hammett (Feb 11)
- Re: NANOG 90 Attendance? Ryan Hamel (Feb 11)
- Re: NANOG 90 Attendance? Tom Beecher (Feb 11)
- Re: NANOG 90 Attendance? Mike Hammett (Feb 11)
- Re: NANOG 90 Attendance? Glen A. Pearce (Feb 13)
- Re: NANOG 90 Attendance? Tom Beecher (Feb 13)
- Re: NANOG 90 Attendance? Glen A. Pearce (Feb 13)
- Re: NANOG 90 Attendance? Mike Hammett (Feb 14)
- Re: NANOG 90 Attendance? Paul Ebersman (Feb 14)
- Re: NANOG 90 Attendance? Tom Beecher (Feb 14)
- Re: NANOG 90 Attendance? Tom Beecher (Feb 11)
- Re: NANOG 90 Attendance? Ryan Hamel (Feb 11)
- RE: NANOG 90 Attendance? Howard, Lee via NANOG (Feb 15)
- Re: NANOG 90 Attendance? Tom Beecher (Feb 15)
- RE: NANOG 90 Attendance? Howard, Lee via NANOG (Feb 15)
- RE: NANOG 90 Attendance? Warren Kumari (Feb 19)
- Re: NANOG 90 Attendance? Randy Bush (Feb 19)
- Re: NANOG 90 Attendance? Warren Kumari (Feb 20)