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

["Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick () ianai net>]

On Jun 14, 2016, at 11:50 AM, Hugo Slabbert <hugo () slabnet com> wrote:
> On Tue 2016-Jun-14 10:12:10 -0500, Matt Peterson <matt () peterson org> 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 mentioned (say in the case of a unpublished vulnerability) - how is a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.

--
TTFN,
patrick

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail