On Jun 2, 2010, at 12:17 PM, Jay Hennigan wrote: >> 2. I agree completely that the new entity should be completely transparent >> to the members. This is a good idea. However, I have seen major problems >> with this in the past, where the original entity was unwilling to meet the >> new transparency desires of the new entity. This makes it very difficult >> until after significant progress in the transition is completed. > > Agreed 100%. Do you also agree that such transparency has been lacking > in the announcements to date by the new entity.
No. It's been a very small number of weeks since the first announcement. Are you expecting daily reports from these unpaid people? Shall we micro-manage the SC? > There has been > transparency only in that they are doing it, not why they are doing it. > Very limited transparency in how they are doing it and how it will be > better than the status quo. Unless you are paying their salaries, I might suggest learning some patience. > I for one have never asked for nor received personal responses to any of > my questions. I have asked for public clarification. I don't consider > myself to be an armchair critic. I saw, out of the blue, an > announcement that a decision had been made "unanimously" to sever ties > with Merit followed within hours by a statement from Merit that they had > not been informed of this in advance and were opposed to it. Is Merit > an "armchair critic" here? Oh, now we are debating the meaning of "Is". *plonk* -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source and other randomness _______________________________________________ Nanog-futures mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
