I may be able to offer some clarity on the transition. In the interest of full disclosure, I was one of a number of folks who advised the SC after the decision had been made. I did not provide any input into the decision to separate, one way or another. Once informed of it, my first reaction was, like many others: "its about time".
When the current NANOG charter was put it place, 5 years ago, it was in response to a lack of governance of NANOG by the constituency. Instead, Merit imposed direction through a succession of program managers, some of whom were quite capable and pleasant (Craig, et al), and some who were not (Susan Harris). At that time, the actions of Merit's program manager for NANOG has all but broken the organization. The decision was made to create a steering committee, who would select volunteers for other tasks, such as the PC, communications committee, and later, the marketing committee. As time went by, volunteers took greater charge of NANOG's affairs, but there will still several red lines: Merit, of course, controlled the selection of paid staff, and also controlled conference venue selection, dates, and other important details like the number of events per year. Efforts by successive SC's to impact some of these areas were met with frustration, from what I understand. At the time of the original Charter process, one of the options was to split off and form a completely separate organization. For many of us, it was the desired option, but we all knew that we simply didn't have the infrastructure in place at the time. So, why now? Why split NANOG from Merit? I don't know what moved each member of the SC to vote as they did, but I have some good guesses based on my conversations with each of them. I can't speak for them, but here's my conception: 1) There have been some serious issues with paid staff. Just as when we had some very bad Merit staff in place, without recourse, we finally got some outstanding staff. And then, we got new staff. The outstanding staff? Fired. Why? None of our business. This was and is totally within Merit's rights - they are paying folks and they get to decide their employment status. However, that may not be the best path for the NANOG organization. 2) Scheduling conferences has been sometimes difficult because Merit has its own calendar which can conflict with NANOG's priorities. 3) Merit has "owned" the conference and venue selection part of the equation, which is sometimes troubling, as some of the choices have not been good fits for our constituency. Again, this is their right - they have assumed massive contractual liability. It would be improper for NANOG to tell Merit "well yes, you have all of this financial liability, but we're going to tell you what to do". 4) Number of conferences a year - many members of the NANOG constituency have talked (for at least 5 years) about changing the number of conferences. This is worth a good public discussion and vote, in my opinion. Unfortunately, because of their staffing situation, Merit wasn't open to the idea. Again, Merit has staff to pay and they need a certain financial situation to make that happen. These are some examples. I'm sure there have been additional issues that only the SC has been party to. The key here is that Merit hasn't done anything wrong: they simply have different priorities from NANOG and must act in their own best interest. They are obligated to do so in order to obey their bylaws and fulfill their mission to their constituency. But there's the rub: Merit's constituency is NOT NANOG and never has been. They have a different (and worthy, might I add) mission, that is divergent from ours. I think Merit gets great credit for the work they've done with us, but there are places they can't and shouldn't go. I apologize if I have spoken out of turn. As I said, I'm not (and have never been) an SC member, so I have not been privy to all discussions. I think we'll see more posted here from the SC soon, but many folks were out of town at the GPF last week, which impacted things. One last issue - why was this not discussed as an organization? One person has used the word "coup" - but that's exactly what this wasn't: Our elected representatives made this decision for us, which is why we elected them. When the NANOG charter was set up, the SC was created as our governing body. I know this because, along with Steve Gibbard and Dave Barack, I wrote it. They couldn't be more open about the decision because this is an issue of great sensitivity, vis a vis Merit. However, almost the minute that the decision was made and communicated to Merit, the community was informed. Now, its time to stand up and figure out how it will all work. I think that's going to require much more than the SC. Now is the time to volunteer. - Daniel Golding, speaking only for himself.
_______________________________________________ Nanog-futures mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
