Re: Peering BOF/Peering social @NANOG69?

[Mehmet Akcin <mehmet () akcin net>]

Someone will need to volunteer and organize this track just like others. It
has been challenging to find content. Topic can be contraversial and of
course people might not want to always speak as open as they should in
order to make the time useful.

I have really liked peering bof personally from many years ago where it
provided a great platform to speak. I will volunteer to organize peering
bof in nanog 70 and present it to PC's consideration as it seems some folks
want to see that back including myself

Mehmet


On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 6:14 PM Jay Hanke <jayhanke () gmail com> wrote:

> The peering social at previous NANOG meetings has been excellent and
> very useful. As you mentioned, the peering personals are perhaps not
> as valuable. It would be great to see the social portion come back in
> some form.
>
> Jay
>
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Dave Temkin <dave () temk in> wrote:
> > The Peering Personals has been shelved while we try to figure out a
> better option.
> > There was no peering content submitted to the Program Committee that
> justified a separate track, and so they chose to include the content in the
> general session throughout the program.
> > Regards,
> >
> > -Dave
> >
> > On Feb 6, 2017, 8:12 AM -0500, Matthew Petach <mpetach () netflight com>,
> wrote:
> > > I'm squinting at the Guidebook for NANOG69,
> > > and I don't seem to see any peering BOF or
> > > peering social this time around. Am I being
> > > blind again, and it's on the agenda somewhere
> > > but I'm just overlooking it?
> > > Pointers in the right direction would be appreciated.
> > >
> > > Thanks! :)
> > >
> > > Matt