> -----Original Message----- > From: William Norton [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 10:57 AM > To: nanog-futures Futures > Subject: [Nanog-futures] NANOG Transition - How we got here > > Hi all - > > I spoke up at the community meeting and during the NANOG Transition BOF > at NANOG, trying to get a better understanding of what was happening with > NANOG. I asked a few questions, and admittedly got caught up in the > moment during some of the discussions. A couple folks got the impression > that I was AGAINST the transition. > > To be clear - - - I am NOT against the transition (of NANOG from a Merit > activity to a new organization more tightly directed by elected members of > the community). > My issues are with how we got here. > > As I stated before, in the first Steering Committee I was pushing for the same > thing (See slide 12 "Actual Results" of my NANOGHIstory slides from NANOG > 37 back in 2007). The idea that the elected Steering Committee was merely > an advisory role or meeting attendee advocate role just didn't seem rational - > it provided the 'transparency' but lacked the 'accountability' aspect that we > all required from the post-NANOG revolution phase. As several folks > mentioned, there are indeed different interests at play between Merit and > the NANOG community, as there in any partnership. My feeling was (and is) > that this advisory form of Steering Committee-Merit relationship is not as > effective as it needs to be. So the end state of some form of self-governed > NANOG can be better. > > At this NANOG I had conversations with the NANOG Steering Committee > members and the Merit folks about what led to this immediate transition. > Based on what I learned, we have here is a classic inter-group conflict that > could have been better handled with a mediator and informal discussions. > The goals should have been ensuring buy in to cooperative transition, > defining a plan and timeline for an orderly and coordinated community- > driven transition plan. As is typical, the rationale from both sides included > exaggerated perceptions about motivations and many assumptions about > how the other side would react to various actions. > > In any case, instead, both sides have left the community with a transition > where > > 1) the broader community was not brought along for the ride with identified > problems and proposed solutions, it was a 'done deal' (this would have taken > time) > 2) the plan for this new NANOG was not shared broadly with the community > (was not really developed fully), and yet > 3) both sides agree the transition HAS TO HAPPEN now. > > So, as a community member, my opinion is that we lost an opportunity to do > something really cool here: we could have taken the time to develop a > newer and better NANOG organization while demonstrating the principles > that led to the first revolution: transparency, accountability, as a newer, > better NANOG, all done in a community-driven fashion. This would have > taken time and some work, but it would have been pretty cool. > > But the past doesn't matter now, so Where are we now? > > Fundamentally, we all agree that > the transition will happen, > it will happen in a couple NANOGs, > we all want it to be a success, > we will try some new untested things. > > Just wanted to share where I am coming from, and I agree that the > discussion should now be about what we should do. I look forward to that. > > Bill > <snip>
I am not sure I understand why a comprehensive "why we got here" statement is necessary beyond what the Steering Committee laid out in the community meeting. If change is good then what would be gained from dissecting the reasoning behind it? If I had seen a large group of opposition to the concept at NANOG 49 I would certainly have rethought my position, but since there wasn't such a group. We were lucky that we can have an amicable parting of the ways, so it appears the timing was right. I can't disagree more strongly with your statement that we've lost an opportunity. All the SC did was to create a wireframe organization that directly mirrors the present structure, sans Merit, of course. The community now has the opportunity to shape that organization through volunteering and direct involvement in the new organization. Doing the nuts and bolts work of creating a new organization is not done through committee, unless you want to spend endless hours arguing over the color of the bike shed. So now we have an organization with a BoD that is going to be subject to the same voting as the SC for NANOG proper. Other than that, we have committees, populated with volunteers from the community, that will shape the new organization going forward. You can lament or you can contribute. I prefer the latter. Regards, Mike _______________________________________________ Nanog-futures mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
