NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
1

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mentioned (say in the case of a unpublished vulnerability) - how is a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?

--Matt

2

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mentioned (say in the case of a unpublished vulnerability) - how is a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?

3

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.

4

Harassment policy is a good idea

https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/ietf-anti-harassment-policy.html

Walking on eggshells because sponsors don't appreciate the message and find
posting pictures of their dance parties while discussing
non-profit financials is ... Or is that a different subtweet?

We are talking about dnssec?

To that end, let a million flowers bloom.

It was a good relevant talk.

Regards,
C&J

5

Harassment policy is a good idea

https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/ietf-anti-harassment-policy.html

Similar approach would be an explicit statement of expectations of participants -
<https://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/standardsofbehavior.html>

/John

6

I'd suggest that this is not an operation discussion and should be moved to
the NANOG Membership list.

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.

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.

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.

Daniel Golding
(speaking in my personal capacity)

7

John,

We've had this for years. https://www.nanog.org/governance/attendance

If you notice similarities - they are intentional.

If you notice differences - NANOG has always had a higher threshold for a
frank exchange of views between participants. We have no desire to stifle
that.

Dan

8

Hello,

A vague question can only yield a vague response. I have no clue what
presentation you're talking about nor any idea why anyone should be
upset about it.

IMO, their are four tiers of meritorious criticism:

1. Privately, directly with the vendor
2. On the mailing list naming no names
3. On the mailing list, name and shame
4. A call to carpet at a meeting

#1 is not always practical -- vendors make it increasingly hard to
contact them as customers, let alone as non-customers. Tried to reach
Google about a problem? Like, ever?

#2 should happen before #3. If #2 hasn't happened yet, #3 is rude.

#3 should happen before #4. If #3 hasn't happened yet, I think the
program committee should encourage a presenter to open a discussion on
the list first.

If #2 and #3 have happened, I think it's entirely appropriate to
publicly present the vendor's misbehavior and encourage the audience
to speak at the mic about how the vendor's error is harming them. It's
information the vendor needs to know to stay in business, it's
information the rest of us need to know when evaluating the vendor,
and in some cases its information the regulatory authorities need to
know when considering consumer protection.

That having been said, I see no reason why presentations naming a
vendor should be allowed to surprise the vendor. If a presentation
will name a particular vendor, that vendor should receive an advance
draft so that their reps are prepared to speak at the mic about their
intentions. Also, occurrences of #4 should be exactly as rare as
persistent vendor misbehavior.

Anyway, not a fan of dancing on eggshells. If something deserves to be
said, it should be said. If we can't take a little honesty, we're in
the wrong line of work.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

9

"If a presentation will name a particular vendor, that vendor should
receive an advance
draft so that their reps are prepared to speak at the mic about their
intentions. "

One of the least savory aspects of the technical press and industry analyst
worlds is something called pre-pub review. That's where big vendors pay you
to see stuff before its printed, so they can attempt to censor it. It
happens all the time, and you never know about it.

Sharing people's decks with vendors before they are presented might be a
nice thing for the presenter to do, but its not appropriate for the NANOG
organization.

Dan

10

Were they truly targeted in a hurtful manner, or just reprimanded for doing
something stupid?

11

John,

We've had this for years. https://www.nanog.org/governance/attendance

If you notice similarities - they are intentional.

<chuckle>

If you notice differences - NANOG has always had a higher threshold for a
frank exchange of views between participants. We have no desire to stifle
that.

Makes perfect sense to me - thanks for the pointer!

So, you’ve set expectations, and those include a clear reporting and enforcement
process, so is discussion of the session in question (I actually have no idea which
one it is ) on a mailing list really the right approach? Alternatively should folks who
feel there was an issue just follow the reporting process? (rhetorical question)

/John

Disclaimer: my views alone.

12

+1

I found some very good points in Dave's talk. I've seen these governance
issues in other organizations I've been involved with.

It's no different then when Marge got up and implored the Springfield City
Council to use their money to pave Main St. and everyone else screamed
Monorail! (doh!)

13

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.

14

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.

thanks for speaking up with a clear voice

randy, who generally does not like to meee tooo

15

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. :wink:

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

16

Yes! Though the "Hey that was negative! Don't say negative things about
  me!" mentality is not specific to our industry, but the American culture.

  As I parent, I see this every day with children -- parents dealing with
  everything that could be considered unpleasant on behalf of their child,
  and blaming others (teachers, other kids, other parents, solar flares)
  rather than taking on personal ownership of sometimes negative and
  complicated issues.

  Negative feedback, respectfully and objectively delivered, should be
  embraced as opportunities to improve ourselves, our products and our
  services, not shunned and silenced because it points out a flaw.

17

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.

< rant >

pablum nog. you are pandering to vendors to keep attendee costs down so
you can have a high attendee count most of whom are sales folk. what
can possibly go wrong?

the pc be should have at least two talks including the unvarnished truth
about specific named vendors, and at least one talk must be about a
'sponsor', whatever the hell that is and why it is needed. different
ones every time, it is a target rich environment.

the O in nanog is operator, not sponsor, panderer, suck up, ... we're
spending millions for half debugged underperforming crap and we are
cornered by infrastructure providers (e.g. ixps) who run us over time
and again if it makes an extra penny.

if you tell the vendors the truth, the real vendor engineers can go home
and explain why they need management support to fix things. the truth
makes us all free.

randy

18

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?".

Nothing was threatening, it was debate. Sometimes debate is heated, but that
was not even heated debate. If you were offended, grow a thicker skin. You
don't have a right against offense and much thought provoking discussion can
be offensive to some people.

I thought it was great to see some back and forth.

To the college student, this was debate in it's purist form. There are no
"free speech zones" here.

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.

I'd rather lose a sponsorship than restrict our debate. Censorship is evil,
prior restraint is just as bad.

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) .

Oh come on, it was a small ribbing at worst.

19

I think we should have the discussion in a constructive manner.

What do we want the IXPs to do? What do we want the RIRs to do? What do we want the ccTLDs to do? What do we want IANA, ISOC, IETF etc to do?

Right now they're doing things that they see as "good for the community", and not only spending money on producing their own service. They do outreach because not everybody knows about every service available. They hire community members and send them to conferences (IGF for instance) to try to achieve that governments hear from us. They spend money on research. They might spend money on acilliary services such as root/ccTLD name servers or NTP servers on the IXP.

When asking community what should be done, a wide range of different answers are given.

I don't have a problem having this discussion. I don't see it as "vendor bashing" but instead as someone who has an opinion on how things are done today.

Question is, how can it be had in a constructive manner?

20

Ogre?

Drive slow,

Paul