Bill, In the interest of "clarifying a simple misunderstanding", there was no lunch involved. Kumar came to me at 3:00PM outside the plenary (inside the meeting space), pointed at you and said that you told him to come talk to me.
I've kept silent on the public lists about this, and would appreciate you doing the same. If you'd like a public debate about how I feel about your recent behavior we can open that can of worms, but not on this list as it's not "futures". -Dave > > From: William Norton <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:59:06 -0700 > To: Paul WALL <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Cc: nanog-futures Futures <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > Subject: Re: [Nanog-futures] NANOG Transition - How we got here > > On Jun 30, 2010, at 7:21 AM, Paul WALL wrote: > >> Bill, >> >> This is all very interesting, inasmuch as you invited salespeople to >> crash NANOG49 (unpaid) for the purposes of pitching the sponsor. > > Wow - the story gets propagated and more exaggerated by the minute. > Thank you Mr. Temkin, (Marketing, NANOG). > > Here is what actually happened. > > I had lunch with the CEO of MediaMelon - he said he wanted to meet Ken > Florance (NetFlix), a friend who I have lunch with periodically. I > mentioned that he would be at NANOG. The gentleman works in San > Francisco and stopped by the hotel at lunchtime, unfortunately on > Tuesday and I hadn't seen Ken but I did see his subordinate (Dave > Temkin) - I made the suggestion that maybe he could maybe grab lunch > with Dave instead. > > Next thing I know, I was scolded by Mr Temkin to the SC, the NANOG > Marketing group, and apparently through the rumor mill as evidenced by > your inaccurate portrayal of what actually happened. Here is the > scolding: > > > I find it extremely inappropriate that you brought MediaMelon in > > specifically to "hunt" for myself and Ken Florance at this meeting. > > We are the meeting sponsor and we expect that vendors be respectful > > of the commitments that we have to the community. > > > > Further, if MediaMelon would like to "sell" their wares to NANOG > > attendees such as Netflix, they should purchase either a meeting > > pass, or, more appropriately, pay to sponsor like everyone else. > > How could it possibly be fair for you to "sneak" Kumar from > > MediaMelon in, but Network Hardware Resale, Citrix, and many others > > need to pay $5,000 and up to get a moment of my time? If Kumar > > wants to contact me outside of NANOG where I'm not cornered, he > > certainly has many ways to do so. It's clear that the meeting was > > engineered. > > > > I suggest that you discuss this with Kumar and encourage him to > > donate or sponsor NANOG or NewNOG. I could understand that he may > > be unfamiliar with how this community works, but frankly I expected > > better from you. > > > > -David Temkin > > (Marketing Working Group) > > I replied to clarify what appeared to be a simple misunderstanding. > > *From:* William Norton [[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>] > *Received:* 6/15/10 6:33 PM > *To:* David Temkin [[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>] > *CC:* [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> [[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>]; nanog-marketing > [[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>] > *Subject:* Re: Inappropriate vendor meeting > > Please. Give me small break. > > I did not sneak this gentleman in. He wanted to meet ken Florance. Not > being here I suggested he talk to you. > > Geesh. > > Bill > > Which resulted in continued attack cc'ing the SC/Marketing folks: > > Bill, > > That's ridiculous, and I'll let the fact that you don't deny any of it > speak for itself. > > I wish I could give you more credit, but after the commercialized > "federated cdn" bof, taping the last peering bof, and now this, it > shows that you have no respect for NANOG. > > This overreaction seems strikingly similar to the Avi NANOG issue of a > few years back - one of the things that led up to the NANOG revolution > in the first place. Avi was chewed out by the Merit NANOG Chair for > sitting in the NANOG hotel public area and chatting with some friends > - not attending sessions, not eating the food, not really crashing > IMHO. Just enjoying visiting with friends for a bit. This guy came to > see if he could grab a quick lunch with Ken - he didn't know what Ken > looked like. > > We seem to be becoming what we rebelled against, like Animal Farm. > >> >> While I think you owe us all an explanation on how you allowed that to >> happen, the past doesn't matter, so would you be able to comment on > > My role as a NANOG attendee does not include policing the door. > >> what you're doing to make things right? Which organization, Merit or >> NewNog, should expect a $600 donation from DrPeering? > > To make things right I am making this silly event transparent. > > Bill > >> >> Drive Slow, >> Paul Wall >> >> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 1:57 PM, William Norton >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> 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 >>> >>> Sidenote - I would share in some of the blame in that we in the >>> Steering Committees to date did not candidly describe some of these >>> frictions in our meeting minutes; instead we all glossed over >>> differences, and patted ourselves on the back for the progress and >>> success of the meetings. It would have been helpful feedback back to >>> the community how this SC-PC-MLC-NANOG experiment actually worked >>> and where it didn't. >>> >>> As a result of lack of candor, we have nothing to point to, nothing >>> for the successor SC to review that highlighted relationship >>> challenges, what was tried to overcome those challenges, etc... in >>> short, there is an absence of institutional memory for the future >>> SCs and the community to highlight the problems and why the >>> transition is the best solution to the problems identified. >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Nanog-futures mailing list >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures >>> > _______________________________________________ Nanog-futures mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
