Most of the note below is just a rant, similar in form to the dozen notes by a handful of posters over the weekend here, on NANOG-Reform & NANOG-Futures. C'mon folks, refocus that energy into doing something professional and positive for the NANOG community.
Please cease demands for over-the-top documentation from hard-working volunteers. Fixating on a stray message or two that were sent in advance of archive activation is fruitless. There is no way what was said in the halls at the NANOG meetings - in Reston or Vegas - about this project could be documented in full either. Embrace the progress made on many fronts and work towards the by-laws. -ren
At 08:59 PM 2/20/2005 -0800, Michel Py wrote:
Hi Gadi,
> Gadi Evron wrote: > Please read the below text in full, if you are going to read > any of it. I use a lot of cynicism to get my point across.
Same here. Besides cynicism, I also use (and possibly abuse) sarcasm.
> I haven't been involved with the NANOG reform initiative, > and haven't really commented on it, as I liked what I saw > and am not really that involved with NANOG politics - and > that's just how I like it. > However, I can't ignore some of the things I am seeing > lately from the outside, hence my comments, which are mine > alone and stand as opinions others don't have to accept. > Also, I may be wrong. Replies I received, especially from > Steve, satisfied me originally. No longer.
FWIW, I am interested in hearing more about the "no longer" part.
> I believe in Merit's wishes, good will, hard work and promises. > I really do.
For the record, I do not believe in wishes, good will, promises, rumors, buzzwords and the list is too long to go on. I believe in results. Except:
> hard work.
I do believe in this one. It does not mean that I like it, as I prefer napping on the beach with nothing to do to working, but I do believe in this one anyway. If anyone has good tips on how to achieve the same by napping on the beach instead of hard working, please speak up!
> And I am willing to give them time and working-space.
Same here.
> Thing is, we seem to be missing something. > Martin Hannigan, an all around good guy, seems (to me) to > have made a snag at management, hiding behind the reform.
I could have written this myself. For the record, these are my own words posted on nanog-reform 3 days ago:
"This will be perceived by the innocent bystander as follows: Martin wanted Susan's job and got it through backroom maneuvers in the dark."
> Can't argue with my ill-formed and un-informed feelings > (or any feelings for that matter), right?
Whether your feelings are ill-formed and/or un-informed is not relevant to me (also valid for my own feelings, BTW). Paul Vixie and William Allen Simpson have recently worded better text than I could about this.
> You can explain to me, how this is not the case and I am making > stupid deductions, based on facts you did not yet easily provide > - that has yet to happen. I wonder why. Please give me facts that > will burn these weird ideas our of my skull.. please.. I *want* > to see the light.
I'm afraid I want to see the light as much as you do, not the one carrying the light.
> Now, I don't really mind the reform or Martin doing it, I just > don't see how it is "visible" beyond us just being "told" about it.
My point also.
> When I am *told* about something, I go to conspiracy theories,
This reminds me that I have to have a good talk between me, my ego and my subconscious mind about conspiracy theories. Do you have two other guys in your brain too?
> and then to investigation. I am paranoid, it's my job.
If you don't mind my asking, is this a _paying_ job? If yes, I wouldn't mind a copy of the application form :-)
> You don't have to like my opinions or listen to me. But me and how > many others have these mis-conceptions? Please share with us few > idio... ignorant fools.
I would have written: "idio^H^H^H^H ignorant fools."
> Enlighten us.
As mentioned earlier, I am not the one carrying the light. I expect Sue Joiner to shed light soon though.
> "Provisional" [government] is way too "un-declared" in my > opinion. Please "define" what "provisional" means. Also, > I am overly uncomfortable about the lack of visibility from > the offset. Visibility is the main "thing" Merit promised.
Gadi, you are preaching the choir.
[This sounds weird to me as much as I expect it does to you; not only I do not know of everyone that actually has preached a choir, it does not appear to me that you could be one of these. Nevertheless it is a very common English/American sentence; non-native English speakers, google is your friend]
> Now, I don't personally know you, but I doubt you would lie > about this. However, I also know Martin to be a good an > honourable guy, so I'd suggest you post the email messages > that disappeared, here, and let us decide if there is > censorship
The messages that have disappeared have been forwarded to Sue. I am happy to forward them to you if requested, but I would ask the same favor I asked Sue: don't trust me and cross check with someone else that has received them. IMHO, the posts themselves (save for William's one, a "technical casualty" me thinks) are as relevant if not more than the fact they have "disappeared".
> and indeed Martin is an asshole, or if you are just a troll who > sends out accusations without proof to back them up. No offense..
None taken.
> just being honest as I don't know the facts and I form opinions > based on what I do know and feel when such facts are not provided.
This is an honorable position.
> Any replies sent to me that do not refer to the full text will > be ignored, as taking sentences out of context here is way too > easy, and I'm too tired for yet another flame bait.
I believe I did not remove any. If I did, or have further questions, please say so.
Michel.
