Peering BOF/Peering social @NANOG69?

[dave at temk.in (Dave Temkin)]

Thank you, that's great feedback and great ideas.

Regards,
-Dave

On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 9:51 PM, John Kemp <kemp at network-services.uoregon.edu
> wrote:

>
> I would like to see the session continue in some form.
> Social was close to good.
>
> The peering presentations weren't as useful to me personally.
> They sometimes made the time for actual peering conversations
> too short.
>
> The extra food and drinks were not important to me personally.
>
> ...
>
> Perhaps an "extended break" 45 minutes, with typical
> break food, and no presentations.  Or if you want, a *silent*
> rolling slide show on a screen, with 1-slide per submitter,
> for peering news items or general peering requests...
>
> Cheaper... quieter... shorter...  But having all the people
> in the same room at the same time for the same purpose, usually
> pretty useful.
>
> 2 cents,
> John Kemp
>
>
> On 2/6/17 9:17 PM, Dave Temkin wrote:
> > Hi Bob,
> >
> > This was inadvertent and we will bring this back for NANOG 70.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > -Dave
> >
> > On Feb 6, 2017, 6:58 PM -0500, Bob Evans <bob at fiberinternetcenter.com>,
> wrote:
> >> I suggest in the future NOT to get rid of something because a new method
> >> is attempted. I.E nanog had a nice method of identifying potential and
> >> existing peers with a simple green dot at registration to indicate an
> >> individual was involved with BGP in their company. That went away and
> >> today there is nothing. Cost of implementation was less than 5 dollars
> at
> >> any office supply retailer.
> >>
> >> Just a thought.
> >>
> >> Thank You
> >> Bob Evans
> >> CTO
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> 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 at 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
> >>>
> >>
> >>
>
>