Summary

  • AfNOG’s dated 2007 call described tutorials as in-depth technical workshops.
  • It said they should be non-commercial in nature without defining that term.

A content boundary governs before a session begins: it tells contributors what kind of material belongs in the programme. AfNOG’s 2007 call drew one in two words—non-commercial—inside a detailed description of tutorials.

The page described classroom-style technical workshops that could include hands-on work and offer advanced training on networking technology already deployed or soon to be deployed. It also said tutorials should be non-commercial in nature.

Those are the documented facts. The page does not define commercial content, specify disclosure of affiliations or products, give examples, identify reviewers or describe enforcement. It reports no proposal decision or outcome.

As governance analysis, an undefined principle can still signal a valued distinction between instruction and promotion. But contributors may interpret the same boundary differently when technical explanations may name vendors, products or employers. The source reports no such dispute.

A future call could preserve the principle while stating what attribution is permitted, what relationships should be disclosed, examples of acceptable and unacceptable treatment, and where a contributor can seek clarification. These are prospective design options, not claims about 2007.

This dated page is not evidence of current AfNOG policy. Its narrow lesson is about rule legibility: publishing a principle establishes a boundary, while examples and a clarification route make that boundary usable.

Sources