Re: NANOG Changes
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005, Joe Provo wrote: : On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 10:19:45PM +0200, Gadi Evron wrote: : Scott Weeks wrote: : On Thu, 17 Feb 2005, Gadi Evron wrote: : : : want to see at this headache of a position, or we do it openly on the : : Yes, publically. Please. : : Publically - on NANOG itself, please. : : Please no. Speaking as someone for whom this place was a It was a mistake and I wish to recall it. scott
Re: NANOG Changes
Merit has setup the nanog-futures list and made it public and open from the outset.. that is the forum to take this discussion to but focus on HAS set up? I thought they were going to set it up. Hmmm Well, what do you know, here it is at the bottom of this page... http://www.nanog.org/email.html No archive yet that I can see... --Michael Dillon
RE: NANOG Changes
[for those not reading nanOg-reform, this is a hidden reference to my yesterday's post] Reading nanog-reform? Is there some kind of list? Let me have a look at http://www.nanog-reform.org. Nope, nothing here but old news. http://www.nanog-reform.org/cgi-bin/twiki/view/NANOGReform/DraftBylaws Aha! So there really is more stuff hidden away on that site for the chosen few. Perception is reality, eh? --Michael Dillon
Re: NANOG Changes
On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 11:05:03AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Reading nanog-reform? Is there some kind of list? Let me have a look at http://www.nanog-reform.org. Nope, nothing here but old news. The nanog-reform list was announced both on nanog@ and during the Sunday night meeting in Vegas. It is a public list. http://www.nanog-reform.org/cgi-bin/twiki/view/NANOGReform/DraftBylaws Aha! So there really is more stuff hidden away on that site for the chosen few. Perception is reality, eh? I wouldn't really classify a set of draft bylaws that are being constantly discussed on a mailing list that has been publicly announced, that live on a web site that anyone can read or post changes to, as hidden away. Particularly when any complete set of bylaws would be voted on anyway. People, please, gain some perspective here. Nobody wants the thankless job of maintaining a mailing list that badly. --msa
Re: NANOG Changes
Aha! So there really is more stuff hidden away on that site for the chosen few. Perception is reality, eh? People, please, gain some perspective here. Nobody wants the thankless job of maintaining a mailing list that badly. Perhps I'm being too subtle here. I fully realize that all these irregularities are the result of incompetence and not of malice. But, as Paul Vixie wisely pointed out, in the realm of politics, perception equals reality. If something is not completely in the open then people tend to believe that there are nefarious plotters doing backroom deals to sieze power. The i's need to be dotted and the t's need to be crossed. If there is really a nanog-reform mailing list associated with nanog-reform.org then put information about it on the website. Move the petition signers to a secondary page. Put a link to (and explanation of) the wiki on the nanog-reform.org homepage. If there really is an archive of nanog-futures then put information about it on the website. If there really are some interim results as reflected by the several emails on the NANOG list, then put this info on the nanog-reform.org website. Dot the i's. Cross the t's. The community to which NANOG addresses itself is only partially represented by this mailing list and even less represented by the NANOG meetings themselves. There are many, many IP network operators in North America (and elsewhere) who would benefit from greater cooperation and communication through a medium like NANOG. In order to reach out to them, we have to stop posting in cryptic language and assuming that everyone is part of the in-crowd and knows how to find that one reference to a nanog-reform list buried somewhere in the archives of this mailing list. This is not an attack on any one person but rather a general comment on behavior which is widespread on this list. It's the middle of the noughties now and the Internet has grown up. We need to move on and restructure our forums and organizations to better meet the needs of the industry and the IP network operations community. --Michael Dillon
RE: NANOG Changes
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
Re: NANOG Changes
Arhchive here michael: http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog-futures/ not sure if its complete yet but i know merit are trying to include the first few messages nanog-reform here: http://mailarchive.oct.nac.net/nanog-reform/maillist.html again, dont know how complete it is. understand also, the list has been open to subscriptions, the reason for creating it was to allow a bunch of people to kick some ideas around before airing them and getting into a mess of discussions much like what we have now. we saw this successful in vegas with the community forum and the document on the nanog-reform site was well put together. what we have now is what happens when 5000 people try to negotiate which is many varying opinions, vocal people getting more airtime than they ought to when their opinions are only their opeinions and nnot necessarily the opinions of any large group. some folks need to write a document, propose it, vote on it and majority rules.. not everyone will like all of it but its not possible to write a document that satisfies everyone 100%. i believe thats the aim of the bbylaws doc - please dont flame it, provide constructive comments, be prepared to compromise and dont get lost in minutia when the major points have yet to be fixed. Steve On Mon, 21 Feb 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Aha! So there really is more stuff hidden away on that site for the chosen few. Perception is reality, eh? People, please, gain some perspective here. Nobody wants the thankless job of maintaining a mailing list that badly. Perhps I'm being too subtle here. I fully realize that all these irregularities are the result of incompetence and not of malice. But, as Paul Vixie wisely pointed out, in the realm of politics, perception equals reality. If something is not completely in the open then people tend to believe that there are nefarious plotters doing backroom deals to sieze power. The i's need to be dotted and the t's need to be crossed. If there is really a nanog-reform mailing list associated with nanog-reform.org then put information about it on the website. Move the petition signers to a secondary page. Put a link to (and explanation of) the wiki on the nanog-reform.org homepage. If there really is an archive of nanog-futures then put information about it on the website. If there really are some interim results as reflected by the several emails on the NANOG list, then put this info on the nanog-reform.org website. Dot the i's. Cross the t's. The community to which NANOG addresses itself is only partially represented by this mailing list and even less represented by the NANOG meetings themselves. There are many, many IP network operators in North America (and elsewhere) who would benefit from greater cooperation and communication through a medium like NANOG. In order to reach out to them, we have to stop posting in cryptic language and assuming that everyone is part of the in-crowd and knows how to find that one reference to a nanog-reform list buried somewhere in the archives of this mailing list. This is not an attack on any one person but rather a general comment on behavior which is widespread on this list. It's the middle of the noughties now and the Internet has grown up. We need to move on and restructure our forums and organizations to better meet the needs of the industry and the IP network operations community. --Michael Dillon
RE: NANOG Changes
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005, Hannigan, Martin wrote: [ snip ] As I was browsing the archive, I noticed my post and his and another one from William Leizon that quoted mine have been removed from it. From what I understand, the archive feature wasn't turned on until just before the first post that was actually archived appeared. So, now that archiving is on (for those of us reading the archive instead of subbing to the traffic), can those posts be resubmitted for the sake of posterity? - billn
RE: NANOG Changes
-Original Message- From: Bill Nash [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 9:53 PM To: Hannigan, Martin Cc: William Allen Simpson; nanog@merit.edu Subject: RE: NANOG Changes On Sun, 20 Feb 2005, Hannigan, Martin wrote: [ snip ] As I was browsing the archive, I noticed my post and his and another one from William Leizon that quoted mine have been removed from it. From what I understand, the archive feature wasn't turned on until just before the first post that was actually archived appeared. So, now that archiving is on (for those of us reading the archive instead of subbing to the traffic), can those posts be resubmitted for the sake of posterity? Bill; Let me correct a mischaracterization. I have nothing to do with any technical or administrative issue on nanog-futures. I'm just a poster like anyone else. As far as the nanog-futures archive goes? You'd think it would be a relatively simple operation to add something that's missing. How about just resending it as a historical note and if some person feels really strongly that it must be authenticated, by all means, PGP sign it. -M
RE: NANOG Changes
All: Reminder, if you sent an email regarding NANOG changes to either list (NANOG or NANOG-Futures) between Thursday (Feb. 17) and Saturday (Feb. 20), the list archive was not working yet. Sorry about the disruption and loss. Please resend your email privately to [EMAIL PROTECTED] We will make sure to add all mail received to the nanog-futures archive. Thanks for your support: Betty
Re: NANOG Changes
On 21 Feb 2005, at 10:06, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: nanog-reform here: http://mailarchive.oct.nac.net/nanog-reform/maillist.html again, dont know how complete it is. understand also, the list has been open to subscriptions, the reason for creating it was to allow a bunch of people to kick some ideas around before airing them and getting into a mess of discussions much like what we have now. And since it an open list (and since I had trouble finding subscription information at the above URL or at www.nanog-reform.org) the following might be useful to others: To subscribe, send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Joe
RE: NANOG Changes
William Allen Simpson wrote: Please, the interim-moderators should moderate, and the bylaws drafters should draft, and they should be separate. It's the usual difference between the Chair and the Editor (or Raporteur, or Recording Secretary). I introduced this important division to the IETF many years ago Since they accepted the moderation function, they've disqualified themselves from the drafting function. It appears that they do not share your view, by reading nanog-futures. The new mailing list administration has already demonstrated that it had zero credibility: Yesterday, I posted something that displeased Martin Hanningan and was told that I needed his permission. As I was browsing the archive, I noticed my post and his and another one from William Leizon that quoted mine have been removed from it. This is not better, it is worse. Although I did not like the way Dr Harris moderated the least, at least she did not try to rewrite history when she did not like something. Michel.
Re: NANOG Changes
It appears that they do not share your view, by reading nanog-futures. The new mailing list administration has already demonstrated that it had zero credibility: Yesterday, I posted something that displeased Martin Hanningan and was told that I needed his permission. As I was browsing the archive, I noticed my post and his and another one from William Leizon that quoted mine have been removed from it. This is not better, it is worse. Although I did not like the way Dr Harris moderated the least, at least she did not try to rewrite history when she did not like something. 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. 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. I believe in Merit's wishes, good will, hard work and promises. I really do. And I am willing to give them time and working-space. 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. Can't argue with my ill-formed and un-informed feelings (or any feelings for that matter), right? 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. 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. When I am *told* about something, I go to conspiracy theories, and then to investigation. I am paranoid, it's my job. 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. Enlighten us. 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. 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 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.. 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. 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. Gadi.
RE: NANOG Changes
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Michel Py Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2005 4:20 PM To: William Allen Simpson; nanog@merit.edu Subject: RE: NANOG Changes William Allen Simpson wrote: Please, the interim-moderators should moderate, and the bylaws drafters should draft, and they should be separate. It's the usual difference between the Chair and the Editor (or Raporteur, or Recording Secretary). I introduced this important division to the IETF many years ago Since they accepted the moderation function, they've disqualified themselves from the drafting function. [ snip ] As I was browsing the archive, I noticed my post and his and another one from William Leizon that quoted mine have been removed from it. From what I understand, the archive feature wasn't turned on until just before the first post that was actually archived appeared. -M
RE: NANOG Changes
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
RE: NANOG Changes
It should be noted that Michel is speaking only for himself, and not for the nanog-reform group (and I haven't seen any concensus among the nanog-reform group yet on the draft bylaws that Michel is referring to). I am also speaking only for myself on this. I'd been waiting to hear that the nanog-futures list had actually been created before urging that this discussion move there. Since it sounds like it has been, now would probably be a good time to move the discussion. -Steve On Fri, 18 Feb 2005, Michel Py wrote: Paul Vixie wrote: I am uncomfortable having folks from the nanog-reform community accepting responsibility for provisional moderation (a form of interim governance), So am I. However, I will point out that these individuals have acted with precipitation (which is the correct term to use when something happens in a matter of days) and without any kind of endorsement or mandate from the nanog-reform community. See below about the position of the nanog-reform community. Perception isn't *actually* reality, [for those not reading nanOg-reform, this is a hidden reference to my yesterday's post] I could live with Paul's phrasing, as long as it is understood in the context I wrote it: but in politics (which this is) the difference between perception and reality is just not worth discussing. For the record, with regard to mailing-list moderation (BTW, we call this mailing-list administration now), the collective position of the nanog-reform community can be found in two places: 1. http://www.nanog-reform.org/ List Administration Group Ideally, we would like to see the NANOG mailing list run itself, with peer pressure or self-policing used to keep things on topic. Since we recognize that there may at some point be cases where that doesn't work, there should also be a list administration group with the ability to deal with extreme cases. The list administrators should be selected by the board, and should follow policies set by the board. They should be people with an understanding of network operations and what constitutes on-topic and appropriate discussions. Attempts should be made to steer discussions back on-topic, and to determine whether somebody is really being disruptive, before any enforcement action is taken. There should be thorough public records of any enforcement actions 2. http://www.nanog-reform.org/cgi-bin/twiki/view/NANOGReform/DraftBylaws 7.2.2 Mailing List Administrator Selection The steering committee will select the administrators of the NANOG mailing list (discussed further in 8.1.2). 8.1.2 Mailing List Administration The nanog-l will be administered and minimally moderated by a panel selected by the Steering Committee. William Allen Simpson wrote: Please, the interim-moderators should moderate, and the bylaws drafters should draft, and they should be separate. It's the usual difference between the Chair and the Editor (or Raporteur, or Recording Secretary). Being one of the bylaws drafters I agree with this. Michel. Steve Gibbard [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1 415 717-7842 (cell) http://www.gibbard.org/~scg +1 510 528-1035 (home)
Re: NANOG Changes
On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 10:19:45PM +0200, Gadi Evron wrote: Scott Weeks wrote: On Thu, 17 Feb 2005, Gadi Evron wrote: : want to see at this headache of a position, or we do it openly on the Yes, publically. Please. Publically - on NANOG itself, please. Please no. Speaking as someone for whom this place was a learning resource for many years until I was able to give back in kind, the 'governance' stuff may be important but it is not operational. Betty already said there will be governance and direction handled on nanog-futures. That's the Right Place. Joe, not a party to any of the reform stuff just someone who want to restore utilitity to the list. -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
RE: NANOG Changes
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Joe Provo Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2005 7:22 AM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: NANOG Changes On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 10:19:45PM +0200, Gadi Evron wrote: Scott Weeks wrote: On Thu, 17 Feb 2005, Gadi Evron wrote: : want to see at this headache of a position, or we do it openly on the Yes, publically. Please. Publically - on NANOG itself, please. Please no. [ SNIP ] In typical majordomo subscribe fashion, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and then cut and past the following to the first two lines of the message body and send it off. subscribe nanog-futures end
Re: NANOG Changes
On 02/19/05, Steve Gibbard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd been waiting to hear that the nanog-futures list had actually been created before urging that this discussion move there. Since it sounds like it has been, now would probably be a good time to move the discussion. *agree* There still needs to be a formal announcement, for those who may be interested but are ignoring this thread. I'll leave that to the current governors, though, 'cause it's not my place. -- J.D. Falk uncertainty is only a virtue [EMAIL PROTECTED]when you don't know the answer yet
Re: NANOG Changes
I promised some people that I'd comment publically on the moderation change. Selecting Steve's message at random as a place to start, let me just quote: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Gibbard) Subject: Re: NANOG Changes Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 01:04:51 -0800 (PST) Speaking only for myself (and certainly not for Merit): The NANOG Reform group (http://www.nanog-reform.org), which has already gone on record supporting an open and democratic NANOG, was asked for volunteers. I think all three of us are looking at this as a temporary assignment until the broader issues of NANOG governance are sorted out. First, I am speaking only for myself and not for my employer or for Merit or for the nanog-reform community. Having discharged my duties as co-moderator of the Las Vegas meeting, I'm now just another bozo on this bus. Second, I am uncomfortable having folks from the nanog-reform community accepting responsibility for provisional moderation (a form of interrim governance), since it's a nominal conflict of interest. I wish that Steve and Martin and others involved in drafting bylaws had refused to serve as interrim moderators. Failing that, I'd like these moderators to stand down from any elected position for a period of at least a year from the formation of the new permanent governance structure. Third, I think that the current unilateral governance system where Merit decides what's the best thing to do after collecting input from interested parties (which, by the way, is exactly what the nanog-reform community set out to change) means that it's basically Merit's decision right now who moderates and how. I wish that Merit had reached out to the whole nanog@ community in search of interrim moderators rather than limiting its solicitation to the nanog-reform@ or any other subcommunity. Fourth, I do not think Merit or Steve or Martin or anyone else has any dark motives about this, and I'm sure that these interrim moderators will do a fine job. I just wish that all the political I's would get dotted and all the political T's would get crossed. Perception isn't *actually* reality, but in politics (which this is) the difference between perception and reality is just not worth discussing. Finally, to those among you who have counselled me against this contrarian position on the grounds that I might self-marginalize: you should go read the archives of this and perhaps other mailing lists. Me being an outlier will surprise approximately nobody.
Re: NANOG Changes
Paul Vixie wrote: ... I just wish that all the political I's would get dotted and all the political T's would get crossed. Perception isn't *actually* reality, but in politics (which this is) the difference between perception and reality is just not worth discussing. Speaking as someone with more than a passing familiarity with practical political process, Paul's comments are correct. Please, the interim-moderators should moderate, and the bylaws drafters should draft, and they should be separate. It's the usual difference between the Chair and the Editor (or Raporteur, or Recording Secretary). I introduced this important division to the IETF many years ago Since they accepted the moderation function, they've disqualified themselves from the drafting function. And I especially like Paul's point that those serving as the moderators be disqualified from serving in another postition for at least a year. -- William Allen Simpson Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
Re: NANOG Changes
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005, William Allen Simpson wrote: Paul Vixie wrote: ... I just wish that all the political I's would get dotted and all the political T's would get crossed. Perception isn't *actually* reality, but in politics (which this is) the difference between perception and reality is just not worth discussing. Speaking as someone with more than a passing familiarity with practical political process, Paul's comments are correct. Please, the interim-moderators should moderate, and the bylaws drafters should draft, and they should be separate. It's the usual difference between the Chair and the Editor (or Raporteur, or Recording Secretary). I introduced this important division to the IETF many years ago Since they accepted the moderation function, they've disqualified themselves from the drafting function. And I especially like Paul's point that those serving as the moderators be disqualified from serving in another postition for at least a year. I'm not sure what the purpose of that is, seems a bit arbitrary. As I see it, this is a process, some short term improvements have been made as an interim fix and response to vegas's community meeting but theres also more to come before its complete. Lets not get sidetracked with issues that arent there.. Merit has setup the nanog-futures list and made it public and open from the outset.. that is the forum to take this discussion to but focus on what you want not whats past or interim. Steve
RE: NANOG Changes
William Allen Simpson wrote: And I especially like Paul's point that those serving as the moderators be disqualified from serving in another position for at least a year. Ditto. Michel.
RE: NANOG Changes
Paul Vixie wrote: I am uncomfortable having folks from the nanog-reform community accepting responsibility for provisional moderation (a form of interim governance), So am I. However, I will point out that these individuals have acted with precipitation (which is the correct term to use when something happens in a matter of days) and without any kind of endorsement or mandate from the nanog-reform community. See below about the position of the nanog-reform community. Perception isn't *actually* reality, [for those not reading nanOg-reform, this is a hidden reference to my yesterday's post] I could live with Paul's phrasing, as long as it is understood in the context I wrote it: but in politics (which this is) the difference between perception and reality is just not worth discussing. For the record, with regard to mailing-list moderation (BTW, we call this mailing-list administration now), the collective position of the nanog-reform community can be found in two places: 1. http://www.nanog-reform.org/ List Administration Group Ideally, we would like to see the NANOG mailing list run itself, with peer pressure or self-policing used to keep things on topic. Since we recognize that there may at some point be cases where that doesn't work, there should also be a list administration group with the ability to deal with extreme cases. The list administrators should be selected by the board, and should follow policies set by the board. They should be people with an understanding of network operations and what constitutes on-topic and appropriate discussions. Attempts should be made to steer discussions back on-topic, and to determine whether somebody is really being disruptive, before any enforcement action is taken. There should be thorough public records of any enforcement actions 2. http://www.nanog-reform.org/cgi-bin/twiki/view/NANOGReform/DraftBylaws 7.2.2 Mailing List Administrator Selection The steering committee will select the administrators of the NANOG mailing list (discussed further in 8.1.2). 8.1.2 Mailing List Administration The nanog-l will be administered and minimally moderated by a panel selected by the Steering Committee. William Allen Simpson wrote: Please, the interim-moderators should moderate, and the bylaws drafters should draft, and they should be separate. It's the usual difference between the Chair and the Editor (or Raporteur, or Recording Secretary). Being one of the bylaws drafters I agree with this. Michel.
Re: NANOG Changes
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: Merit has setup the nanog-futures list and made it public and open from the outset.. that is the forum to take this discussion to but focus on what you want not whats past or interim. Okay I just double checked the archive before saying this but after Betty said: Third, we are creating a new email list, NANOG-futures, to discuss NANOG's evolution. We hope you'll participate - watch for a message later today or tomorrow about subscribing and a proposed time-line for moving us forward. I thought I'd wait for the actual announcement. Since this hasn't come I assumed the list wasn't going yet. However I just checked. http://www.nanog.org/email.html and at the bottom it says: NANOG-futures List Everyone is welcome to join this new list, established to discuss concerns raised at our special community meeting at the 2005 Las Vegas NANOG. Topics to be covered include NANOG's organizational structure, policies and procedures, and meeting agendas. To subscribe to NANOG-futures, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'subscribe nanog-futures' (without the quotes) as the text of the message. To unsubscribe, send e-mail to the same address, and use only the word 'unsubscribe' as the text of the message. Which I guess means we should all go and join the list... *sigh* , Lets hope after this rocky start things settle down. -- Simon J. Lyall. | Very Busy | Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To stay awake all night adds a day to your life - Stilgar | eMT.
Re: NANOG Changes
On Sat, 2005-02-19 at 01:25 +, Paul Vixie wrote: I'd like these moderators to stand down from any elected position for a period of at least a year from the formation of the new permanent governance structure. Paul makes very good solid points. One thing that I would add, having experience in setting up such an organization, is to avoid setting firm hard-line restrictions against any participation. I would recommend a slight modification to Paul's second point. A current moderator, judged to be in good standing by his peers, may run unopposed for a vacant, or to-be vacant, position. If someone doesn't want that person to be in an elected position all they have to do is step up to the plate. It is only in NANOG's interest to have interested people serve. -Jim P.
Re: NANOG Changes
First, the NANOG list will now be moderated by a volunteer group that includes Marty Hannigan, Steve Gibbard, and Chris Malayter. Many thanks to these folks for taking on this role in upholding the list's AUP. Just a small comment from someone looking from the outside of the NANOG political mess... I have nothing against these people, I know one of them and of them, and am sure they are good people. More over, they are volunteers and that's commendable. Leaving silly disclaimers aside, how did you collect candidates? How were these candidates selected? Who selected them? Reforms are nice, but unless I missed something, the main point you were speaking of was more visibility how of things are done. Why not let the community chose it's own side of the leadership, after all, nobody is contending: list's AUP. Susan Harris and Sue Joiner will represent Merit on the committee. Moderation decisions will be made by the entire group with a Chair appointed within the group to keep the peace: If all this was answered somewhere and I missed it, please consider this a troll and accept my apologies. Gadi.
Re: NANOG Changes
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005, Gadi Evron wrote: First, the NANOG list will now be moderated by a volunteer group that includes Marty Hannigan, Steve Gibbard, and Chris Malayter. Many thanks to these folks for taking on this role in upholding the list's AUP. Leaving silly disclaimers aside, how did you collect candidates? How were these candidates selected? Who selected them? Reforms are nice, but unless I missed something, the main point you were speaking of was more visibility how of things are done. Why not let the community chose it's own side of the leadership, after all, nobody is contending: Speaking only for myself (and certainly not for Merit): The NANOG Reform group (http://www.nanog-reform.org), which has already gone on record supporting an open and democratic NANOG, was asked for volunteers. I think all three of us are looking at this as a temporary assignment until the broader issues of NANOG governance are sorted out. -Steve
Re: NANOG Changes
Speaking only for myself (and certainly not for Merit): The NANOG Reform group (http://www.nanog-reform.org), which has already gone on record supporting an open and democratic NANOG, was asked for volunteers. I think all three of us are looking at this as a temporary assignment until the broader issues of NANOG governance are sorted out. Perfect, but let's not repeat past mistakes. Let's set a date for this temporary government to expire, and start discussing how the process of a more permanent governing body will be achieved. I think 3 months is the longest we should decide on (not consider, the NANOG community has enough considering to do), we can do it in a month. I believe this is important enough, either someone who has been here forever steps forward and volunteers to get the emails of who people want to see at this headache of a position, or we do it openly on the list. A poll can be done later on. Gadi.
Re: NANOG Changes (and proposal)
Hi everyone - apologies for a rather long message, but I wanted to bring you up-to-date on some steps the Program Committee and Merit have taken to evolve NANOG since our community meeting in Las Vegas. *Many thanks* to those of you who attended and gave us feedback - we learned a lot and look forward to working with all of you to maintain the high standards we have come to expect from NANOG. Second, the NANOG Program Committee has elected a new chair - thank you Steve Feldman! Steve will now handle speaker communications that deal with content, and will make any last-minute decisions about what to include on the agenda. Third, we are creating a new email list, NANOG-futures, to discuss NANOG's evolution. We hope you'll participate - watch for a message later today or tomorrow about subscribing and a proposed time-line for moving us forward. In the past, I've suggested (and volunteered for) NANOG to have a more extensive publication program, not simply an archive of presentation. There are some extremely valuable pages on the NANOG website, but I believe there is value to having a slightly more formalized publication process. RIPE and RIPE-NCC have done so for some time, with very useful outputs. It has been suggested that the IETF RFC process can serve, but there are problems with that. IETF's process is optimized more for developers than operators. It also can be slow, not from controversy but simply from administrative process and workload. I'm sure I'm not the only author to see a year or two elapse between working group consensus and final RFC publication. Betty, would you see this discussed on NANOG-futures? Is it worthwhile to reopen exploratory decisions on the main list?
Re: NANOG Changes
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005, Gadi Evron wrote: Perfect, but let's not repeat past mistakes. Let's set a date for this temporary government to expire, and start discussing how the process of a more permanent governing body will be achieved. I think 3 months is the longest we should decide on (not consider, the NANOG community has enough considering to do), we can do it in a month. I believe this is important enough, either someone who has been here forever steps forward and volunteers to get the emails of who people want to see at this headache of a position, or we do it openly on the list. A poll can be done later on. something has to be arbitrary in the absence of a government, its a chicken and egg. i think you're looking for problems that arent there - do you or anyone have issue with the progress thus far? if not the question is moot. Steve
Re: NANOG Changes
something has to be arbitrary in the absence of a government, its a chicken and egg. i think you're looking for problems that arent there - do you or anyone have issue with the progress thus far? if not the question is moot. My question was answered. The current government which was not chosen by the people is provisional. All I personally care about now is a schedule, and by schedule I only mean a deadline for when this government will be replaced.. or succeeded if you like, as a Vulcan would say. Gadi.
Re: NANOG Changes
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005, Gadi Evron wrote: : want to see at this headache of a position, or we do it openly on the Yes, publically. Please. scott
Re: NANOG Changes
Scott Weeks wrote: On Thu, 17 Feb 2005, Gadi Evron wrote: : want to see at this headache of a position, or we do it openly on the Yes, publically. Please. Publically - on NANOG itself, please.
Re: NANOG Changes
Thank you Betty and the whole NANOG/Merit group for making great decisions on moving forward. This will help NANOG evolve. I'd like to ask that folks who know long time, clue heavy contributors who have left to return. Merit has reached out, we need to as well. Thanks, scott
