<snip> > 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. > > This due to... > > a classic inter-group conflict that could have been better handled > with a mediator and informal discussions. > > I suspected the same when the initial announcement came out, that some > interpersonal conflict triggered a rush to action rather than a well > orchestrated transition. > > It seems that 2) above is being addressed to a large extent. But 1) > above is the real "How we got here" question. I have heard allusions to > disagreements with regard to meeting schedules and locations, but I have > no idea what those disagreements were. Did Merit want more meetings and > the SC fewer, or the other way around? What happened at that closed > meeting with no minutes with Merit uninvited? Who at the SC felt that > who at Merit had polluted their Cheerios, and why? > Again, why is this so important? Even as Bill said, the concept of NANOG going on its own has been around since the beginning of the organization, and has been discussed formally for at least 5 years. You are concerned with the ongoing relationship between NANOG and Merit and I would suggest that the SC is acutely aware of this relationship and wants it to be amicable as well. Why get into a he-said, she-said between the two organizations? Nothing good can come of that approach and I think that both the SC and Merit have done an excellent job of keeping this on a business level. "Polluting the Cheerios" discussion can become personal very quickly and this is not a personal decision.
> Actions are usually taken to solve specific problems. According to > previous list postings, the SC took this action at a closed meeting, > without minutes, without Merit present, and came up with a unanimous > decision that immediate action was needed, which Merit thought was a bad > idea. > Much of this was addressed in the community meeting. There have been scheduling conflicts in the past where NANOG has been scheduled on top of other network-oriented meetings, causing many community members to have to decide what meeting to attend. Also, the scheduling of meetings is something that happens far in advance. In order to make sure we got NANOG 52 contracted, we had to get the organization formalized in short order to sign those contracts. > The community has not been informed as to the specific problem that > needed this immediate solution. Those who chose to take this action at > a meeting without minutes, with no community involvement, have > appointed > themselves as the BoD of the new organization. This is worrisome to me. > Again, the BoD is following the SC-elections exactly. As an example, Joe Provo will term out at the end of this year, and he will also term out from the BoD of NewNOG. The SC appointed themselves because we had to have a wireframe organization in place to begin the 501(c)(3) application as well as to sign contracts for upcoming meetings. There is no cabal. There are working groups being established with community volunteers that will determine what NewNOG will look like. A call for volunteers was issued at NANOG 49 and many have responded. If you have strong opinions about governance I suggest you become involved. > > 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 don't think it's all that amicable, based on the initial posting to > this list and Merit's response. We in the cheap seats may never know. > It was really too late by NANOG 49 to unring the bell. By that time > "whether" wasn't really a viable option. No large opposition because > people didn't know the "How we got here", and no real way to stop it. > By that time it was a done deal. > There are a few, vocal opponents, but I don't see they are opposed to NewNOG. Rather, they are opposed to the procedural decision of the SC to act on behalf of the community in creating NewNOG. I suggest they also volunteer to help shape the new organization. > > 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. > > Unfortunately, at this point we don't have any other choices. > Suggesting a mediator and informal discussions to resolve whatever > (unknown to most of us) inter-group conflict initiated this is probably > a little late. > You cannot mediate scheduling conflicts based upon Merit's need to support their constituency in precedence to NANOG. Their members come first, and rightly so. NewNOG members come first, and rightly so. > We will probably survive this. We will need to contribute. But before > contributing, I for one need to trust the leadership. Trust as in > having faith that they know what they are doing and have both a viable > business plan and the skills to implement it. That is 2) above. We > seem to be getting there. Also trust as in believing that they are > honest people and are open in their dealings both with the community and > with third parties. That is 1) above and "How we got here" relates > directly with that. Making critical decisions at undocumented > closed-door meetings where concerned parties are not invited doesn't do > much to instill trust. > All SC meetings are "closed door" but then meetings are posted after the fact. I would argue this is the same amount of transparency we have now. Please refer to http://www.newnog.org/board.php for meetings on the new BoD. I'm going to say it again because it's important. All the BoD has done is set up the nuts and bolts of a fledgling non-profit. They took the existing NANOG bylaws and incorporated those directly into the new organization. They are following the election process of NANOG with no difference in terms. The community has been invited to volunteer to participate in the shaping of the new organization and the BoD is committed to following the wishes of the community going forward. I don't know the entire back story of the transition and I don't really care. I didn't care when I volunteered initially and I care less now. All I care about is helping the new organization succeed and I hope others feel the same way, and will devote time and energy to that end. Regards, Mike _______________________________________________ Nanog-futures mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
