Re: 2 meetings / budgets [Re: mlc files formal complaint against me]
On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 06:20:54AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anything that we can do to see a productive community meeting, a thoughtful election, and meetings with the SC, PC and MLC that lead to a better NANOG. Quite frankly, if you are one of the uninitiated, and that includes the managers that decide whether or not to fund someone's travel to a conference, then it is a big mystery what NANOG is. I went to the website and looked around a bit. At first it sounded like a trade association but then the agenda at the meetings (aren't these conferences?) seemed to be mostly technical. Anyway, when you look at all the new groups that spring up around important Internet operational issues, like MAAWG, you wonder whether NANOG isn't cutting off its nose to spite its face when it narrows down its focus to only the topics that Randy Bush likes. 15 years ago, those were hot topics because everyone was struggling with the basics of routing, exponential traffic growth, need for figuring out what was happening in the network. But not, the vendors and their certified technical people can handle most of that stuff. It's no longer rocket science. It's no longer undocumented. It no longer requires building your own tools from scratch. As long as NANOG restricts itself to a narrow topic area, it suffers from marginalization. So, nothing is on-topic unless randy deems it so? ;) Why is network abuse not a network operational topic? Botnets? Spammers? these things are discussed at the nsp-sec forum. perhaps nsp-sec scoping is too small (or broad) and there need to be other forums. i'm not suggesting inviting gadi. I'm not saying that botnets and spammers must become NANOG topics, but I am saying that designing narrow stovepipes is anti network-operations. I wonder why NANOG didn't spin off a botnets list and a mail-abuse list that are tied into the larger area of network operations. Also, if you look at what the operations department of a network operator actually does, then NANOG is of marginal relevance. The industry has moved on from the days of startup companies running the Internet and now that is squarely the task of telecommunications companies. NANOG sometimes seems to be like a buggy-whip manufacturer railing about that newfangled automobile thingy. --Michael Dillon P.S. Anyone feel like continuing this thread in a brainstormy fashion? no, er yes. - jared -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from [EMAIL PROTECTED] clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
Re: mlc files formal complaint against me
On 10/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How do we determine what people do want to read vs. what they don't? Do a survey. We're going to. -M
Re: The NANOG Irrelevance? [Was: Re: mlc files formal complaint against me ]
Stephen Wilcox wrote: On 9 Oct 2007, at 18:39, Joel Jaeggli wrote: Stephen Wilcox wrote: i'm not sure that sounds like improvement. why cant the charter just allow them to decide a presentation is worth having without going through all the hoops that Paul mentions if its appropriate? I don't recall feeling particularly bound by the procedure. In the sense that the procedure isn't limiting flexibility modula bill's issue which we have historically(over course of my experience) interpreted it rather liberally anyway. ok so you and bill are saying paul's summary is incorrect? We will consider late submissions particularly of timely material. They do get reviewed. We want slides! There's a finite amount of time in the agenda and in order to have a published agenda a month or more in advance we need to fill slots early so presentations submitted on time have an advantage. There are cancellations, and lightening talk slots so don't give up hope if you miss the deadline. thats good too, if we are removing myths and misconceptions from the nanog community. i look forwards to seeing paul's upcoming preso ;) At this meeting? we're out of slots. Lightening talk submission should open shortly. regards joelja Steve
Re: mlc files formal complaint against me
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How do we determine what people do want to read vs. what they don't? Do a survey. We're going to. - Online? There're a lot of us that can't make it to the meetings, but find the list invaluable. Noise and all. scott
Re: mlc files formal complaint against me
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/10/07, Scott Weeks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How do we determine what people do want to read vs. what they don't? Do a survey. We're going to. - Online? There're a lot of us that can't make it to the meetings, but find the list invaluable. Noise and all. : Definitely online and including the list. --- That's what I meant. On-list; not on the website. Cool! :-) scott
Re: mlc files formal complaint against me
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Probably not feasible to do a non web forms based survey, but the list users would be target. Lets be happy that one may get done at all. If you dont have web, Ill call you and you and do it over phone. - Perhaps instigate discussion on the list as to what's valuable to the list folks and try like hell to keep the discussion as focused as possible (I know. It's like herding cats :-) then get everyone to go to the web form and vote after the discussion gets going. I feel a lot of them won't really go to the web unless motivated to do so. I have web, but thanks for the offer... :-) Maybe get a list of topics folks feel are important going that can be bounced around the list. Then move it to the web and have everyone vote in order of importance to them. scott
Re: mlc files formal complaint against me
On 10/10/07, Scott Weeks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Probably not feasible to do a non web forms based survey, but the list users would be target. Lets be happy that one may get done at all. If you dont have web, Ill call you and you and do it over phone. - Perhaps instigate discussion on the list as to what's valuable to the list folks and try like hell to keep the discussion as focused as possible (I know. It's like herding cats :-) Thanks for the suggestion, I will ask the MLC about it. I don't have a lot of faith that it will have support. The reason why is because we can probably formulate the right questions in the group based on list history and reviewing some postings. Dragging 8000+ people into a series of debates about what they should be asked could prove overwhelming to more than a few. :-) -M
Re: mlc files formal complaint against me
Martin Hannigan wrote: I suggest with the best intention possible that marty unwad his shorts and the rest of us STFU and GBTW. I'll add others to the list, but yes, in the simplest possible terms, this thread was a ridiculous waste of time of everyone involved. Well, Vijay can KMA, but point taken. My shorts are wadded in the right direction. Enough of this bureaucratic bs. Cancel the SC, turn the PC back over to Merit, and get consensus on who should be running the mailing list. It's not that hard. I actually think the PC has done a pretty good job over the last 6 meetings. It's entirely possible that I have a strong cognitive bias due to my participation in it. However, that reminds me. We could use more nominees/volunteers for the PC, in the next 8 days no less. http://www.nanog.org/elections07.html -M
Re: mlc files formal complaint against me
On 9 Oct 2007, at 06:16, Alex Pilosov wrote: On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, vijay gill wrote: Really, reading this thread has left me stupider. I guess instead of focusing on things like the lightweight agenda, abysmal content and actual value to be had from NANOG, we are getting tied up discussing an offhand remark about a convicted felon. I submit that nanog as a whole is stupider under this formal SC/MLC/PC/whatever than when it was under the benevolent dictatorship of Susan. It takes Vijay to cut to the core of the issue and drop science like bombs. Sometimes benevolent dictatorship is much better at getting things done. The useful thing with democracy is you can change the leadership, the bad thing is that the electorate are usually pretty bad at getting it right! Anyway.. I think Vijay and yourself are being unnecessarily harsh. I believe the SC does a good job, they are unpaid individuals spending a lot of time putting together NANOG content and reviewing submissions. It was an excellent point made by Ferg that it should be easier for him to present. I think comments like that could be useful and I agree, if someone who is known to be a quality presenter outlines what sounds like a quality presentation their should be discretion within the SC to allow it through and drop some hoops. Just be careful that you don't make it a club and difficult for outsiders to present tho else it will become stale. afaik Susan never put the content together by herself, there was always a program committee overseeing that function which is now part of the SC remit. ditto on the MLC, it is a damn difficult job (having been on it myself). Have you ever tried keeping up with all the nanog posts and not just thread-deleting for stuff you don't take interest in? Its unpaid and thankless, if you do nothing people complain about off- topic posts and if you take action people complain about your action. You just need to make sure you get a balance and achieve that by choosing your MLC members... the MLC was also previously a committee .. it is just the constitution and process which changed Certainly for the years I've been involved with NANOG the complaints have always been there .. you can't please everyone, just make sure the mandate is relevant and keep to it accepting someone people will continue to be unhappy. So.. Vijay, Alex, Ferg .. why not get involved (if you're not already) .. and keep the criticism positive, its not that hard to cut through the crap and point out stupidities, this isn't set in stone. And as for this thread, I'm in danger of trolling by replying, c'mon guys, get a grip! :) Steve
Re: mlc files formal complaint against me
On 9-Oct-2007, at 0512, Paul Ferguson wrote: - -- vijay gill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Really, reading this thread has left me stupider. I guess instead of focusing on things like the lightweight agenda, abysmal content and actual value to be had from NANOG, I'm glad someone finally said it. Me too :-) The current structure was designed (I guess; I wasn't particularly involved in designing it; others here can confirm/deny) to give the community control over NANOG in a way that it didn't have before. To some degree it feels to me as though the doors to the citadel were thrown wide open at the end of the revolution, only to find that almost nobody is interested in looking inside. Is the reduced usefulness of NANOG that Vijay observes a result of the revolution, or a result of SRH no longer being involved, or a sign of the times, or something else? This is partially the reason why I don't bother with NANOG any more. It is governed and bullied by a group of people who think way too much of themselves, and in fact, consume way too much bandwidth discussing themselves. I'm not at all convinced you can make such a sweeping generality stick on the basis of a public tif between Randy and Marty. Really, Randy having a public tif with someone is more or less a constant, regardless of what else is going on :-) I can't speak for the programme or mailing list crews, since I'm not on those committees. But the steering committee would certainly have a much easier time contemplating NANOG's navel if we heard more complaints like this, from people who were prepared to drill down a little further. Some of us have networks to tend, and other more pressing issues. I certainly find myself with a lot less time to spend on NANOG these days, what with kids and the day job, than I did seven years ago. Back then you couldn't register for a NANOG meeting three weeks before it happened because it was full; today we're limping by from meeting to meeting, struggling to get the attendance that will keep us in the black. Is the problem that those of us on the SC/PC/MLC/whatever are stupid or lazy? What does that say about the people that elected us? Is the industry as a whole shrink-wrapped and vendor-driven to the extent that there's really no need for a NANOG any more? Has the innovation moved up the stack to people publishing APIs to web-based applications, leaving the network as just so much tedious plumbing? Do the enthusiastic NANOGers of 2000 just not have time/energy for this any more, and do their counterparts in 2007 find themselves in a business where the manuals are already written, and they just need to follow along? What needs to change for you to bother with NANOG again? Or are you already well beyond caring? Joe
Re: mlc files formal complaint against me
Is the reduced usefulness of NANOG that Vijay observes a result of the revolution, or a result of SRH no longer being involved, or a sign of the times, or something else? see my other email, i think that point is overemphasised.. I'm not at all convinced you can make such a sweeping generality stick on the basis of a public tif between Randy and Marty. Really, Randy having a public tif with someone is more or less a constant, regardless of what else is going on :-) absolutely. Do the enthusiastic NANOGers of 2000 just not have time/energy for this any more, and do their counterparts in 2007 find themselves in a business where the manuals are already written, and they just need to follow along? theres a lot more competition for meetings, and they have diversified - the industry has evolved. i think the SC should review the idea of 2 meetings per year tho, maybe that will bring focus and relevance. can i ask you to take it to your next SC meeting? What needs to change for you to bother with NANOG again? Or are you already well beyond caring? presumably anyone who complains does so because they care. the SC should note any points made no matter how well hidden in rhetoric and lack lustre insults :) Steve
Re: mlc files formal complaint against me
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Joel Jaeggli wrote: I actually think the PC has done a pretty good job over the last 6 meetings. It's entirely possible that I have a strong cognitive bias due to my participation in it. However, that reminds me. We could use more nominees/volunteers for the PC, in the next 8 days no less. http://www.nanog.org/elections07.html Any chance that somebody could fix the registration urls... Not Found The requested URL /registration/username.epl was not found on this server. cheers! == A cat spends her life conflicted between a deep, passionate and profound desire for fish and an equally deep, passionate and profound desire to avoid getting wet. This is the defining metaphor of my life right now.
Re: mlc files formal complaint against me
On 9-Oct-2007, at 1053, Stephen Wilcox wrote: i think the SC should review the idea of 2 meetings per year tho, maybe that will bring focus and relevance. can i ask you to take it to your next SC meeting? I will not be on the SC after NANOG 41, but I will certainly bring it up there. We've discussed this within the SC before and the answer at that time seemed to be that with the current structure of NANOG, reducing to two meetings per year would leave the NANOG budget even further in the red, to the extent that we couldn't really afford to try it, even as an experiment. However, perhaps the continued difficulties in making revenue match expenses indicate the need for some more radical thinking; perhaps if we are willing to throw out the existing structure and move to something that looks different, the cost structures will better accommodate a two-meeting schedule. (I'm waving my hands. I don't have a specific rising-phoenix picture in mind.) Any change is going to require significant investment of time and energy by volunteers, however. What needs to change for you to bother with NANOG again? Or are you already well beyond caring? presumably anyone who complains does so because they care. the SC should note any points made no matter how well hidden in rhetoric and lack lustre insults :) :-) Joe
Re: mlc files formal complaint against me
Along the lines of this discussion thread, we should probably solicit here for agenda items to bring up at the community meeting. The community meeting is after all one place (like this list) for people to bring up and discuss things to fix/change/reinforce wrt all things NANOG. If we can collect name/issue tuples here we may be able to bring data to the meeting that would help the discussions surrounding the issue(s) at hand. Does anyone want to add issues to discuss at the community meeting agenda (which right now consists of the usual reports from the SC/PC/MLC/Merit)? I think the community meeting is maybe a half hour with these reports so there is time for community discussion. Bill
2 meetings / budgets [Re: mlc files formal complaint against me]
On 9 Oct 2007, at 16:19, Joe Abley wrote: On 9-Oct-2007, at 1053, Stephen Wilcox wrote: i think the SC should review the idea of 2 meetings per year tho, maybe that will bring focus and relevance. can i ask you to take it to your next SC meeting? I will not be on the SC after NANOG 41, but I will certainly bring it up there. We've discussed this within the SC before and the answer at that time seemed to be that with the current structure of NANOG, reducing to two meetings per year would leave the NANOG budget even further in the red, to the extent that we couldn't really afford to try it, even as an experiment. However, perhaps the continued difficulties in making revenue match expenses indicate the need for some more radical thinking; perhaps if we are willing to throw out the existing structure and move to something that looks different, the cost structures will better accommodate a two-meeting schedule. (I'm waving my hands. I don't have a specific rising-phoenix picture in mind.) Um arent the costs of NANOG solely the costs of the meetings? If so then surely each meeting is a self contained project. That being the case, 2 better attended meetings ought to be more 'profitable' than 3 less well attended ones. Or what am I missing here from the annual budget? Steve
Re: The NANOG Irrelevance? [Was: Re: mlc files formal complaint against me ]
On 10/8/07, Paul Ferguson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip For instance: I made an offer a few weeks back to give a presentation on what ISPs could to do to help in fighting cyber crime. I was told that I need to follow this procedure and submit a proposal, etc., which is fine - I suppose. But it seems I have an easier time talking at other venues as invited talks where I don't have to jump through hoops to justify the content to a group of people who should already know me, and the quality of my content/context. The current charter mandates that all PC members review all presentations submitted for NANOG. No flexibility here. But... There is a charter amendment on the upcoming election to strike that text so the PC will have the ability to self manage their process of recruiting and selecting talks and speakers. One can envision for example a variety of program committee solutions including assigning a 90 minute section of the agenda to a group of 3 pc members with expertise in routing, who recruit and coordinate the best speakers they can find in this area on topics of significance to the NANOG community. Their participation in the pc could then be valued based on the quality of that section of the agenda. Etc. There are many ways to self organize to create an agenda besides everyone submits a form and everyone reviews everything. Thanks for bringing it up Paul - I believe this will get better when the charter amendment is passed and the new PC builds the next NANOG agenda. Bill
Re: The NANOG Irrelevance? [Was: Re: mlc files formal complaint against me ]
On 9 Oct 2007, at 16:57, William B. Norton wrote: On 10/8/07, Paul Ferguson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip For instance: I made an offer a few weeks back to give a presentation on what ISPs could to do to help in fighting cyber crime. I was told that I need to follow this procedure and submit a proposal, etc., which is fine - I suppose. But it seems I have an easier time talking at other venues as invited talks where I don't have to jump through hoops to justify the content to a group of people who should already know me, and the quality of my content/context. The current charter mandates that all PC members review all presentations submitted for NANOG. No flexibility here. the charter is a working document.. There is a charter amendment on the upcoming election to strike that text so the PC will have the ability to self manage their process of recruiting and selecting talks and speakers. One can envision for example a variety of program committee solutions including assigning a 90 minute section of the agenda to a group of 3 pc members with expertise in routing, who recruit and coordinate the best speakers they can find in this area on topics of significance to the NANOG community. Their participation in the pc could then be valued based on the quality of that section of the agenda. Etc. There are many ways to self organize to create an agenda besides everyone submits a form and everyone reviews everything. i'm not sure that sounds like improvement. why cant the charter just allow them to decide a presentation is worth having without going through all the hoops that Paul mentions if its appropriate? Steve
Re: The NANOG Irrelevance? [Was: Re: mlc files formal complaint against me ]
On 10/9/07, Stephen Wilcox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip There is a charter amendment on the upcoming election to strike that text so the PC will have the ability to self manage their process of recruiting and selecting talks and speakers. One can envision for example a variety of program committee solutions including assigning a 90 minute section of the agenda to a group of 3 pc members with expertise in routing, who recruit and coordinate the best speakers they can find in this area on topics of significance to the NANOG community. Their participation in the pc could then be valued based on the quality of that section of the agenda. Etc. There are many ways to self organize to create an agenda besides everyone submits a form and everyone reviews everything. i'm not sure that sounds like improvement. why cant the charter just allow them to decide a presentation is worth having without going through all the hoops that Paul mentions if its appropriate? I want to make one thing clear: I brought up *one* way the PC process could remove the hurdles, not *the* way. The key point of the charter amendment is, let the PC do their job. It is up to the selected PC to determine a process for creating a good NANOG agenda. Specifying the process in the charter is too detailed. I think most people agree with that. To your point about the process being cumbersome I think the tough balance is between 1) consistency of process (everyone gets the same treatment, there are no fast tracks for friends and family) and 2) lowering/removing barriers and actively recruiting the really good speakers who may have little or no patience for the formal process. Some would say Submit a talk, it gets accepted/rejected is not overly onerous. I think there is more at stake than that. Some have to get approval for speaking, including reviews of what gets turned in, and everyone internally knows you have a talk turned in for NANOG so when it gets rejected you lose face a bit. Compare that to someone coming up to you and saying I like the talk you gave here, and I'm trying to assemble a set of speakers for a 90 minute slot. Your talk, tuned down to 20 minute would be perfect. Would you speak in our 90 minute section at NANOG? Here we see instant acceptance of talk, little consistency across potential speakers, but with accountability maybe this flexible model could work. I don't know how the future PCs will decide to divy up the work. I look forward to seeing if and how the agenda changes though using a different method than the current process of all reviewers reviewing all talks. Bill
Re: 2 meetings / budgets [Re: mlc files formal complaint against me]
On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 04:42:42PM +0100, Stephen Wilcox wrote: On 9 Oct 2007, at 16:19, Joe Abley wrote: On 9-Oct-2007, at 1053, Stephen Wilcox wrote: i think the SC should review the idea of 2 meetings per year tho, maybe that will bring focus and relevance. can i ask you to take it to your next SC meeting? I will not be on the SC after NANOG 41, but I will certainly bring it up there. We've discussed this within the SC before and the answer at that time seemed to be that with the current structure of NANOG, reducing to two meetings per year would leave the NANOG budget even further in the red, to the extent that we couldn't really afford to try it, even as an experiment. However, perhaps the continued difficulties in making revenue match expenses indicate the need for some more radical thinking; perhaps if we are willing to throw out the existing structure and move to something that looks different, the cost structures will better accommodate a two-meeting schedule. (I'm waving my hands. I don't have a specific rising-phoenix picture in mind.) Um arent the costs of NANOG solely the costs of the meetings? If so then surely each meeting is a self contained project. That being the case, 2 better attended meetings ought to be more 'profitable' than 3 less well attended ones. Or what am I missing here from the annual budget? Merit employee resources are a fixed yearly cost. Changing the divison to be by 2 instead of by 3 for those for budgeting purposes would make that per-meeting cost go up a fair amount. One of those fun quirks. This has been discussed numerous times in the past, but I think is open to be revisited as long as Merit isn't put out on a financial limb that is unsustainable as the role of nanog bank account operator. It would likely take another (r)evolution to do that and take the liability away from them. - jared -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from [EMAIL PROTECTED] clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
Re: The NANOG Irrelevance? [Was: Re: mlc files formal complaint against me ]
On 9-Oct-2007, at 1206, Stephen Wilcox wrote: i'm not sure that sounds like improvement. why cant the charter just allow them to decide a presentation is worth having without going through all the hoops that Paul mentions if its appropriate? I think the charter gives the PC lots of latitude (and will give the PC more latitude if the amendment that Bill mentioned is passed). It has been my observation in past meetings that there are usually slots available for last-minute topics to be included, if the topics are pertinent and the material is good. I seem to think the Taiwan cable cut fell into that category during NANOG 39, but perhaps my memory is faulty. It seems possible that the PC didn't have space for Paul's presentation at the time he suggested it, or didn't think it was a good match for NANOG, or simply didn't like it. Joe
Re: The NANOG Irrelevance? [Was: Re: mlc files formal complaint against me ]
Stephen Wilcox wrote: i'm not sure that sounds like improvement. why cant the charter just allow them to decide a presentation is worth having without going through all the hoops that Paul mentions if its appropriate? I don't recall feeling particularly bound by the procedure. In the sense that the procedure isn't limiting flexibility modula bill's issue which we have historically(over course of my experience) interpreted it rather liberally anyway. We'd like people to submit talks before deadlines (that's why there are deadlines). We recognize that topics come up at the last minute and we look for ways to accommodate them. We are under some pressure to get the schedule out far enough in advance that people can plan around the meeting. Which means there are fewer slots available at the last minute (reviews for this meeting started in early august). It's not fair to bump existing speakers, though sometimes there are cancellations. We have been successful enough at recruiting speakers that we do have to turn some away. This isn't academia we don't have a 4 to 1 or 8 to 1 acceptance rate it's more like 1.4 to 1 Steve
Re: mlc files formal complaint against me
Stephen Wilcox wrote: theres a lot more competition for meetings, and they have diversified - the industry has evolved. i think the SC should review the idea of 2 meetings per year tho, maybe that will bring focus and relevance. can i ask you to take it to your next SC meeting? I don't know if dropping one meeting a year will help or not. If anything, I think it might reduce NANOG participation even further. My present employer will send a dozen or more people to Cisco Networkers this year, and several conferences like that, but we're lucky if we get to send ONE person to a NANOG or ARIN meeting. We would prefer to go to NANOG, which also costs less, so I'm uncertain what is up with the company in their decision. I wonder how many companies do the same. What needs to change for you to bother with NANOG again? Or are you already well beyond caring? presumably anyone who complains does so because they care. the SC should note any points made no matter how well hidden in rhetoric and lack lustre insults :) The things that attracted me to NANOG meetings had less to do with the program, and more to do with meeting up with people I know from different companies, and discussing network direction with them. To be honest, most of the presentations have been rather dry and seemingly repetitive to me, but maybe it's because I already understand the subjects. Maybe others find them more interesting. As far as the mailing list goes... I stopped caring, and rarely read the nanog@ mailing list any longer. It's usually filled with contact requests or derivative topics any more that really have little to do with operating a network, or providing service to customers. But, maybe that was the culture that attracted me in the first place, and I'm just too busy with life now to participate. I continue to read nanog-futures@, as I still care about NANOG, and the industry in general. -Sean
Re: 2 meetings / budgets [Re: mlc files formal complaint against me]
Joe Abley wrote: No, there's a fixed overhead from having N x Merit FTEs doing NANOG stuff year-round, housing NANOG servers, being covered by UMich insurance, accounting, blah, blah. I'm not an accountant, as you can probably tell, but I think that's the right high-level answer. Just out of curiosity, what is the breakdown of those numbers? I mean, how many FTE is NANOG using from Merit, and how many servers in Merit managing for NANOG? Are any of the servers shared with other Merit projects, or are they self contained? I don't really care to know the financial information, as that is between the SC and Merit. -Sean
Re: 2 meetings / budgets [Re: mlc files formal complaint against me]
On 10/9/07, Sean Figgins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Joe Abley wrote: No, there's a fixed overhead from having N x Merit FTEs doing NANOG stuff year-round, housing NANOG servers, being covered by UMich insurance, accounting, blah, blah. I'm not an accountant, as you can probably tell, but I think that's the right high-level answer. Just out of curiosity, what is the breakdown of those numbers? I mean, how many FTE is NANOG using from Merit, and how many servers in Merit managing for NANOG? Are any of the servers shared with other Merit projects, or are they self contained? I don't really care to know the financial information, as that is between the SC and Merit. Check out Betty's slides at: http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0702/community.html The big $$$ is to the hotel - $105K for 1 mtg. A close second biggest cost looks like the staff cost - shown as Salary and I would add in the GA. This is for 2-3 FTEs spread across a bunch of folks who collectively handle the load of NANOG activities. It looks like Merit allocates 1/3 of this expense to each of the 3 meetings. If there were 2 meetings, the staffing costs would be allocated across 2 points. The bottom line, I think you need a few FTEs no matter how you manage NANOG. Having fewer meetings decreases the revenue while keeping the 2-3 FTEs constant. Probably leads to a greater net loss. My conclusion is that more revenue is needed, more sponsorships, more beer-n-gear revenue, more NANOG commemorative mugs and boxer shorts. And find a way to knock down the hotel expenses somehow. BTW - I didn't see the ARIN $50K contributions in the budget on this page. Maybe Cisco should kick in $50K in kind and we don't need to have this conversation ;-)
Re: 2 meetings / budgets [Re: mlc files formal complaint against me]
William B. Norton wrote: The big $$$ is to the hotel - $105K for 1 mtg. This is just for the conference rooms? That's a lot more expensive that I would have thought. The bottom line, I think you need a few FTEs no matter how you manage NANOG. No argument there. There will always be a need for dedicated staff in an organization like this. It's just too much for anyone to try to attack while having a regular paying job. I assume that slide 8 contains 1/3 of the salary for the year that this meeting was supposed to cover, rather than the full one? Having fewer meetings decreases the revenue while keeping the 2-3 FTEs constant. Probably leads to a greater net loss. Who is making up for the loss? My conclusion is that more revenue is needed, more sponsorships, more beer-n-gear revenue, more NANOG commemorative mugs and boxer shorts. And find a way to knock down the hotel expenses somehow. Maybe reduce the number of rooms? I remember a question about whether the computer room was required. I know I usually see one or two people in there during a meeting, but I certainly never attempted to monitor how many people use it in total. Do the BG vendors cover the room, or is NANOG picking up the majority of that price tag? BTW - I didn't see the ARIN $50K contributions in the budget on this page. Maybe Cisco should kick in $50K in kind and we don't need to have this conversation ;-) What percentage does the host company provide? What are the fixed costs of the servers, and the people that manage the servers? That may be a fixed cost that we could find a host to donate. The requirements would just need to be known before trying to find a individual or company to donate the resources. Are there any other costs that NANOG is paying for that might be donated instead? -Sean (I forgot, please respond through the list.)
Re: 2 meetings / budgets [Re: mlc files formal complaint against me]
I've been involved with NANOG for over a year now. I have formed my opinions on how well things work or don't work and will steal my own thunder in this post. I have already charged Betty to increase the value of NANOG to Merit. I think she has taken some good steps in this direction. During the ABQ meeting I plan to challenge the new SC to increase the value of NANOG to the community. NANOG was great years ago. The community says it is not as great as it was because they are not attending/participating. If NANOG has outlived its usefulness we can put it to sleep or change it to make it more useful. Merit can help facilitate the change, but the SC, PC, MLC and other members of the community are the only ones who can truly make NANOG more valuable to the community. The ratio of unproductive interactions to value-adding interactions that I've observed among the NANOG leadership is not what we would find in a great organization. The reason I've sent this message rather than wait to say it in person is that I want everyone who cares about NANOG to think about how we can make it more valuable. If appropriate discuss it here on NANOG-futures. There has been some good discussion recently, but think outside the box (to use an overused term). Anything that we can do to see a productive community meeting, a thoughtful election, and meetings with the SC, PC and MLC that lead to a better NANOG. Thanks, Don William B. Norton wrote: On 10/9/07, *Sean Figgins* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Joe Abley wrote: No, there's a fixed overhead from having N x Merit FTEs doing NANOG stuff year-round, housing NANOG servers, being covered by UMich insurance, accounting, blah, blah. I'm not an accountant, as you can probably tell, but I think that's the right high-level answer. Just out of curiosity, what is the breakdown of those numbers? I mean, how many FTE is NANOG using from Merit, and how many servers in Merit managing for NANOG? Are any of the servers shared with other Merit projects, or are they self contained? I don't really care to know the financial information, as that is between the SC and Merit. Check out Betty's slides at: http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0702/community.html http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0702/community.html The big $$$ is to the hotel - $105K for 1 mtg. A close second biggest cost looks like the staff cost - shown as Salary and I would add in the GA. This is for 2-3 FTEs spread across a bunch of folks who collectively handle the load of NANOG activities. It looks like Merit allocates 1/3 of this expense to each of the 3 meetings. If there were 2 meetings, the staffing costs would be allocated across 2 points. The bottom line, I think you need a few FTEs no matter how you manage NANOG. Having fewer meetings decreases the revenue while keeping the 2-3 FTEs constant. Probably leads to a greater net loss. My conclusion is that more revenue is needed, more sponsorships, more beer-n-gear revenue, more NANOG commemorative mugs and boxer shorts. And find a way to knock down the hotel expenses somehow. BTW - I didn't see the ARIN $50K contributions in the budget on this page. Maybe Cisco should kick in $50K in kind and we don't need to have this conversation ;-) -- Donald J. Welch, Ph.D. President CEO Merit Network – Connecting Organizations, Building Community 1000 Oakbrook Drive Ann Arbor, MI 48104 734-615-0547 www.merit.edu http://www.merit.edu/
RE: 2 meetings / budgets [Re: mlc files formal complaint against me]
Don, I appreciate you taking the effort to reach out to the community. I will not be attending the next NANOG for several reasons not worth mentioning in the greater context of your request. I have attended most of the NANOG meetings starting with NANOG 13. I am among those whom have passively observed a steady decline in value from attending the NANOG over the past several years. It is far too easy to criticize any organized event, and there are many on this list that could do a far better job then I. I will thus make one specific observation, then focus my attention on what I find valuable in the other conferences I most frequently attend: RIPE and APRICOT. In my opinion, the most successful conferences I have attended are those that actively encourage engagement and participation. Conferences where I've simply shown up to listen to talking heads fade into obscure memory on the significance scale. What I like about the RIPE and APRICOT (and perhaps even ARIN) conferences apart is that they encourage and invite participation from the community through the use of tracks and working groups, while still maintaining a significant number of interesting presentations for the community as a whole. Some would argue that for the North American market, these special interest groups, such as IPv6, VoIP, and VOD should be kept within the confines of the ARIN and IETF meetings and that operators should attend those meetings if they wish to participate. I respectfully disagree as I think that it unnecessary excludes a lot of willing participants who could add significant value. RIPE NCC and APNIC, like ARIN, conduct parallel and overlapping meetings with the operator community. The RIPE meetings and the annual APRICOT meetings include tracks for the registry functions, but also Working Group tracks for topics that overlap with the IETF meetings. Although sometimes RIPE and APRICOT offer two tracks in parallel that would be worthwhile attending where I have to choose one over the other, I am happy these choices are available. There are several topics I feel deserve to be segmented off so that we can make the NANOG meetings more productive. A few WG topics off the top of my head: 1/ IPv6. Most are aware that IPv6 needs to be adopted at some point in the future. Many are cognizant of the fact that it is sooner than most believe. Some understand that there are still some key problems with IPv6 that have yet to be solved. A few fear that today's hardware cannot handle tomorrows dual-stack route explosion. Outside of a few talks and presentations there is no forum in the NANOG meeting to work through these issues. 2/ VOIP. How does it work? How is it implemented? What is ENUM? What is VOIP Peering? How can it help save money? What is Jitter and how does it relate to Voice? Why does QOS matter for VOIP? What paid- and open-source tools are out there to get started with VOIP? 3/ Video-on-Demand. Why it matters? How to implement it? Does multicasting content really save bandwidth? How big will content really get? 4/ Network Convergence, Carrier of Carriers, Risks and Rewards, etc 5/ Peering, perhaps... Note that this goes beyond the concept of Birds-of-Feather meetings, which generally seem either too short or too long. I'm sure this will ruffle the feathers of a bunch of people and I expect to be beaten back into silence, but at least I have expressed my opinion... :-) Best Regards, -- Randy Whitney Verizon Business [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Welch, Merit Network Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 4:58 PM Cc: nanog-futures@merit.edu Subject: Re: 2 meetings / budgets [Re: mlc files formal complaint against me] I've been involved with NANOG for over a year now. I have formed my opinions on how well things work or don't work and will steal my own thunder in this post. I have already charged Betty to increase the value of NANOG to Merit. I think she has taken some good steps in this direction. During the ABQ meeting I plan to challenge the new SC to increase the value of NANOG to the community. NANOG was great years ago. The community says it is not as great as it was because they are not attending/participating. If NANOG has outlived its usefulness we can put it to sleep or change it to make it more useful. Merit can help facilitate the change, but the SC, PC, MLC and other members of the community are the only ones who can truly make NANOG more valuable to the community. The ratio of unproductive interactions to value-adding interactions that I've observed among the NANOG leadership is not what we would find in a great organization. The reason I've sent this message rather than wait to say it in person is that I want everyone who cares about NANOG to think about how we can make it more valuable. If appropriate discuss it here on NANOG
RE: 2 meetings / budgets [Re: mlc files formal complaint against me]
Anything that we can do to see a productive community meeting, a thoughtful election, and meetings with the SC, PC and MLC that lead to a better NANOG. Quite frankly, if you are one of the uninitiated, and that includes the managers that decide whether or not to fund someone's travel to a conference, then it is a big mystery what NANOG is. I went to the website and looked around a bit. At first it sounded like a trade association but then the agenda at the meetings (aren't these conferences?) seemed to be mostly technical. Anyway, when you look at all the new groups that spring up around important Internet operational issues, like MAAWG, you wonder whether NANOG isn't cutting off its nose to spite its face when it narrows down its focus to only the topics that Randy Bush likes. 15 years ago, those were hot topics because everyone was struggling with the basics of routing, exponential traffic growth, need for figuring out what was happening in the network. But not, the vendors and their certified technical people can handle most of that stuff. It's no longer rocket science. It's no longer undocumented. It no longer requires building your own tools from scratch. As long as NANOG restricts itself to a narrow topic area, it suffers from marginalization. Why is network abuse not a network operational topic? Botnets? Spammers? I'm not saying that botnets and spammers must become NANOG topics, but I am saying that designing narrow stovepipes is anti network-operations. I wonder why NANOG didn't spin off a botnets list and a mail-abuse list that are tied into the larger area of network operations. Also, if you look at what the operations department of a network operator actually does, then NANOG is of marginal relevance. The industry has moved on from the days of startup companies running the Internet and now that is squarely the task of telecommunications companies. NANOG sometimes seems to be like a buggy-whip manufacturer railing about that newfangled automobile thingy. --Michael Dillon P.S. Anyone feel like continuing this thread in a brainstormy fashion?
Re: mlc files formal complaint against me
dunce cap on irrelevant to the mlc action, but ... as someone just pointed out to me, i was confusing two ex-ceos of qwest, joe nacchio, who is a convicted felon, with sol trujillo, who is not, but is currently the ceo of telstra. apologies. randy
Re: mlc files formal complaint against me
Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: no sc hat at all the appended message earned me a formal complaint from the mlc. No, it did not. It earned you a polite request from Marty to show some leadership and not engage in off-topic personal sniping on the list. When you asked if it was a formal request, I replied that it could be if you wanted it to be, and we are still waiting for a yes or no on that. Since you have stated privately that you have no problem with publishing communications and are in favor of more transparency, please take the step of forwarding both the mail that Marty sent and the mail that I sent along to nanog-futures so that people can draw their own conclusions. While you're at it, you might want to consider forwarding the petulant reply that my clarification elicited; it will provide valuable context for those who wish to understand any actions that the MLC may or may not take. they have accused me of making a personal attack. of course, joe nacchio (apologies for misspelling at first), is a very well known public figure; hence, even if what i said was untrue, which it is not, he is not a protected person. The issue is not whether he's a protected person or not. Offhand comments about Joe Nacchio, Bernie Ebbers, or anyone else's criminal record are clearly outside of the scope of NANOG, unless they can somehow be tied into routing policy or something like that. i have appealed the mlc's formal complaint to the sc. Given that you have not received a formal warning yet, I would say that this is a little bit premature. sc hat on but i am extremely interested in finding out how many people receive similar or analogous reprimands from the mlc, and what form they take e.g., their complaint against me was cc:d to the sc, and, as an sc member, i have never seen others. Perhaps that is because other SC members comport themselves in a manner that is more in line with their leadership position in the community. I'd say that it's entirely reasonable to CC the SC when one of their own is acting churlish, even when such an occurrance is not particularly out of character. Further comments on this will be deferred to Alex Pilosov, who is the chair of the MLC these days. ---Rob randy --- Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 11:43:09 +0900 From: Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Martin Barry [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Why do some ISP's have bandwidth quotas? AU's infrastructure has a long been a quagmire of political fumbling and organised chaos. hey, i thought it was great of you folk to take joe nacio, convicted felon, off our hands. randy
Re: mlc files formal complaint against me
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 03:31:10PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote: no sc hat at all the appended message earned me a formal complaint from the mlc. they have accused me of making a personal attack. of course, joe nacchio (apologies for misspelling at first), is a very well known public figure; hence, even if what i said was untrue, which it is not, he is not a protected person. sounds curious i guess it could be 'character assassination' or 'political' which are both against the AUP presumably there is some prior history (ie warnings?) before going to a complaint.. i have appealed the mlc's formal complaint to the sc. complaint or judgement? presumably a complaint is 'for investigation' and pending outcome as an aside tho, there are mailing list protocols and they are disconnected from being in the SC (or other committee). presumably you are not breaking rules for being on the SC so this is unofficial, a 'polite request' if you like? sc hat on but i am extremely interested in finding out how many people receive similar or analogous reprimands from the mlc, and what form they take e.g., their complaint against me was cc:d to the sc, and, as an sc member, i have never seen others. well, mailing list violations are not the business of the SC so I expect the answer to be zero. if this is an 'unofficial request' as i suggest above then this is rather special and is not being handled 'officially'? it does beg the question tho as to what the complaint is (that is why this cannot be handled through usual mlc warnings) Steve randy --- Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 11:43:09 +0900 From: Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Martin Barry [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Why do some ISP's have bandwidth quotas? AU's infrastructure has a long been a quagmire of political fumbling and organised chaos. hey, i thought it was great of you folk to take joe nacio, convicted felon, off our hands. randy
Re: mlc files formal complaint against me
http://rip.psg.com/~randy/mlc-complaint.mbox
Re: mlc files formal complaint against me
Randy Bush wrote: no sc hat at all I did not think at the time that, that particular message contributed much to the general tenor of the discussion. The implication I derived was not that joe nacchio was a felon, we all know this (19 counts of insider trading), but that .au is still a penal colony. If you were suspended from posting I would consider that inappropriate. the appended message earned me a formal complaint from the mlc. they have accused me of making a personal attack. of course, joe nacchio (apologies for misspelling at first), is a very well known public figure; hence, even if what i said was untrue, which it is not, he is not a protected person. i have appealed the mlc's formal complaint to the sc. sc hat on but i am extremely interested in finding out how many people receive similar or analogous reprimands from the mlc, and what form they take e.g., their complaint against me was cc:d to the sc, and, as an sc member, i have never seen others. randy --- Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 11:43:09 +0900 From: Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Martin Barry [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Why do some ISP's have bandwidth quotas? AU's infrastructure has a long been a quagmire of political fumbling and organised chaos. hey, i thought it was great of you folk to take joe nacio, convicted felon, off our hands. randy
Re: mlc files formal complaint against me
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 12:11:17PM +0100, Stephen Wilcox wrote: [snip] i guess it could be 'character assassination' or 'political' which are both against the AUP [mild tangent: How can the blanket label of political be off-topic given the serious time and energy spent with both informed and otherwise posts about regulatory matters and related 'politics' that have direct bearing on Internet growth/deployment/operations? fodder for another time] The only seeming AUP transgression (a public industry figure's felony status isn't character assassination by any stretch) is that it is off-topic and content-free. Had the felony comment been part of a larger message with relevant content and then generated the same response, I would say the response was completely out of line. As it stands, seems like a 'normal' off-topic message that should have elicited a 'normal' personal warning. Why the SC was copied is a mystery to me unless the MLC think the SC is so out of touch that they do not pay attention to the mailing list. Regarding any individual SC member's behavior; isn't that why there are elections? If this off-topic post is getting a response, I presume others are as well. Since the SC hasn't (and shouldn't be) copied on any private warnings, I look forward to meaningful statistics in ABQ. -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
Re: mlc files formal complaint against me
On 10/8/07, Joe Provo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 12:11:17PM +0100, Stephen Wilcox wrote: [snip] i guess it could be 'character assassination' or 'political' which are both against the AUP [mild tangent: How can the blanket label of political be off-topic given the serious time and energy spent with both informed and otherwise posts about regulatory matters and related 'politics' that have direct bearing on Internet growth/deployment/operations? fodder for another time] [ snip ] If this off-topic post is getting a response, I presume others are as well. Since the SC hasn't (and shouldn't be) copied on any private warnings, I look forward to meaningful statistics in ABQ. Don't hold your breath. The only issue here is that someone was asked to cooperate and instead, the chose to dance. Nobody was warned. Others were contacted just like our unhappy Randy. They were asked to help out. Randy was asked to show some leadership and the SC was cc'd to make sure that it was open and transparent. -M
Re: mlc files formal complaint against me
On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 16:24 +0900, Randy Bush wrote: http://rip.psg.com/~randy/mlc-complaint.mbox Can't we all just get along. Look, Randy's comment was a bit gruff (although deeply humorous to quite a few folks). Considering it was made at 2AM I'd have to say that it's not as bad as I've seen from others in the past, and certainly not an outright lie. Again, I think the argument can be made, that the corrective action/inaction is consuming more resources and time than the supposed crime. -Jim P.
OT re: mlc files formal complaint against me
On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 05:54 +0900, Randy Bush wrote: Jim Popovitch wrote: On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 16:24 +0900, Randy Bush wrote: Considering it was made at 2AM i am in tokyo randy :-) well, I read your emails in Atlanta at 2am and your late-night attitude really shows through even though it's the middle of the day for you. :-) -Jim P.
Re: mlc files formal complaint against me
[ snip, nobody cares about Telstra or the embedded baiting ] if it was just marty being on a piss off about me, then no big deal; i can handle marty (and certainly am in no position to abuse him for being hot-headed). Hot-headed for what reason? Because you are off topic as usual? Not quite. You were asked as a matter of routine task to bring yourself together and get on topic. I'm used to your off topic posting. Hardly a reason to become irritated. but if the mlc is sending undocumented and non-consensus reprimands, warnings, and threats to people and their perceived management, Translation: The chair ran away from this screaming. Yes, I know. Just so we're clear, you will continue to see requests to adapt to the AUP wrt to being on topic. If you don't like that, you can certainly seek to have me thrown off the MLC. In fact, I encourage it. :-) In any event, there's nothing left to say. Case closed. Feel free to continue yelling at the community meeting. -M
Re: mlc files formal complaint against me
On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 18:46 -0400, Martin Hannigan wrote: Just so we're clear, you will continue to see requests to adapt to the AUP wrt to being on topic. If you don't like that, you can certainly seek to have me thrown off the MLC. In fact, I encourage it. :-) I think that is Randy's point... he is seeing them and no one else is, apparently. I've contributed nothing of worth to this discussion today, just some personal opinions, yet I haven't gotten a cease-or-desist nor warning email. -Jim P.
Re: mlc files formal complaint against me
Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: when i asked if it was formal, assuming it was so because it had been cc:d to the sc ($deity knows why), rob said yes it could be taken that way. I'm sorry that you misunderstood my communication; obviously I should have laid it out more carefully. The intent of my email was to say If you are asking to be formally warned, I'll take that up with the MLC and see if we can get something to you in the way of a formal warning. I'm sure that the MLC (which I'm no longer part of) would appreciate a direct answer to that offer so that they can either assume that Marty's message was taken in the informal, colleague-to-colleague context in which it was offered, or if you need a formal warning at this point, get working on that. ---Rob
Re: mlc files formal complaint against me
Jim Popovitch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 18:46 -0400, Martin Hannigan wrote: Just so we're clear, you will continue to see requests to adapt to the AUP wrt to being on topic. If you don't like that, you can certainly seek to have me thrown off the MLC. In fact, I encourage it. :-) I think that is Randy's point... he is seeing them and no one else is, apparently. I've contributed nothing of worth to this discussion today, just some personal opinions, yet I haven't gotten a cease-or-desist nor warning email. I think that the fact that no one else _on the SC_ is seeing warnings about their conduct on the list is _extremely telling_. At the community meeting, I will make the suggestion that the Charter be amended to allow for the removal of SC and PC members for conduct unbecoming. Not necessary for the MLC as they serve at the pleasure of the SC anyway. ---Rob
Re: mlc files formal complaint against me
Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: but i am certainly guilty of terseness and obscurity, as well as confusing two ex-cseo of qwest. my apologies. ... this would have been very clear as to the formality of the message, and have allowed discussion and explantation. Matthew 7:5 ---Rob
Re: mlc files formal complaint against me
On 10/8/07, Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just so we're clear, you will continue to see requests to adapt to the AUP wrt to being on topic. your complaint to me was not about topic, but rather about ad homina. to quote And as you know, the NANOG AUP specifically discourages personal attacks -- which that is. though you do go on to say Please refrain from off topic posting on the NANOG Mailing List. which does subtly imply, but does not explicitly say, that you also thought my posting off topic. Randy, Try and think of NANOG as Nordstroms instead of Best Buy. At Nordies, you buy stuff and you don't negotiate the price. At Best Buy, you yell open box! open box! and you get a 20% discount. Best(not Buy), Martin
Re: mlc files formal complaint against me
On 10/8/07, Jim Popovitch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 18:46 -0400, Martin Hannigan wrote: Just so we're clear, you will continue to see requests to adapt to the AUP wrt to being on topic. If you don't like that, you can certainly seek to have me thrown off the MLC. In fact, I encourage it. :-) I think that is Randy's point... he is seeing them and no one else is, apparently. I've contributed nothing of worth to this discussion today, just some personal opinions, yet I haven't gotten a cease-or-desist nor warning email. That's because there is nothing off topic on nanog-futures. You're opinion is valuable unfiltered. Unfortunately, an apparent vast majority may not feel the same about opinions on NANOG. How do we determine what people do want to read vs. what they don't? It would be nice to have some direction. I don't mean from futures, there's nobody really here, but I mean community wide overall? How do we determine what people really want to hear about and act accordingly? Best, Martin
Re: mlc files formal complaint against me
Martin Hannigan wrote: How do we determine what people do want to read vs. what they don't? It would be nice to have some direction. I don't mean from futures, there's nobody really here, but I mean community wide overall? How do we determine what people really want to hear about and act accordingly? I'm pretty sure I know what I don't want to hear about on futures in the next day or so... For the community meeting assuming anyone shows up this time I think it would be reasonable to engage in a Socratic dialog about whether the volunteer governance structure we have is better serving us then the one we had, not out of nostalgia, there's no going back, only forward. Best, Martin
Re: mlc files formal complaint against me
On 10/9/07, vijay gill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/8/07, Joel Jaeggli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Martin Hannigan wrote: How do we determine what people do want to read vs. what they don't? It would be nice to have some direction. I don't mean from futures, there's nobody really here, but I mean community wide overall? How do we determine what people really want to hear about and act accordingly? I'm pretty sure I know what I don't want to hear about on futures in the next day or so... For the community meeting assuming anyone shows up this time I think it would be reasonable to engage in a Socratic dialog about whether the volunteer governance structure we have is better serving us then the one we had, not out of nostalgia, there's no going back, only forward. Really, reading this thread has left me stupider. I guess instead of focusing on things like the lightweight agenda, abysmal content and actual value to be had from NANOG, we are getting tied up discussing an offhand remark about a convicted felon. I submit that nanog as a whole is stupider under this formal SC/MLC/PC/whatever than when it was under the benevolent dictatorship of Susan. I'm not going to say you're wrong, but everytime those topics come up the machine comes out in full force. But that's what we created, the machine. -M
Re: mlc files formal complaint against me
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 - -- vijay gill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Really, reading this thread has left me stupider. I guess instead of focusing on things like the lightweight agenda, abysmal content and actual value to be had from NANOG, I'm glad someone finally said it. This is partially the reason why I don't bother with NANOG any more. It is governed and bullied by a group of people who think way too much of themselves, and in fact, consume way too much bandwidth discussing themselves. Some of us have networks to tend, and other more pressing issues. $.02, - - ferg -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.3 (Build 3017) wj8DBQFHCw3Qq1pz9mNUZTMRAlU+AKCgqyUJp+xJLsVCaEoGf3YhveLqaQCg7vUQ HDj5R+8ru7qyaS8m4B2yQHk= =Y/fV -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Fergie, a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
Re: mlc files formal complaint against me
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, vijay gill wrote: Really, reading this thread has left me stupider. I guess instead of focusing on things like the lightweight agenda, abysmal content and actual value to be had from NANOG, we are getting tied up discussing an offhand remark about a convicted felon. I submit that nanog as a whole is stupider under this formal SC/MLC/PC/whatever than when it was under the benevolent dictatorship of Susan. It takes Vijay to cut to the core of the issue and drop science like bombs. Sometimes benevolent dictatorship is much better at getting things done. Never was the old adage about people getting the government they deserve truer than it is now. We have become a legion of whiners, focused less on the work and more on the process and protocols of etiquette than building networks, though that is probably something a cisco SE can crank out from a visio template faster and in most cases, better than most participants in this trainwreck. This is something that could be on nanog tshirt, trainspotting style. I suggest with the best intention possible that marty unwad his shorts and the rest of us STFU and GBTW. I'll add others to the list, but yes, in the simplest possible terms, this thread was a ridiculous waste of time of everyone involved. -alex
Re: mlc files formal complaint against me
I suggest with the best intention possible that marty unwad his shorts and the rest of us STFU and GBTW. I'll add others to the list, but yes, in the simplest possible terms, this thread was a ridiculous waste of time of everyone involved. Well, Vijay can KMA, but point taken. My shorts are wadded in the right direction. Enough of this bureaucratic bs. Cancel the SC, turn the PC back over to Merit, and get consensus on who should be running the mailing list. It's not that hard. -M
The NANOG Irrelevance? [Was: Re: mlc files formal complaint against me ]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I realized after I sent that message that it was unfair of me to make statements without properly characterizing them with context. Let me say this: I believe NANOG has very much lost touch with the base of it's constituency. For instance: I made an offer a few weeks back to give a presentation on what ISPs could to do to help in fighting cyber crime. I was told that I need to follow this procedure and submit a proposal, etc., which is fine - I suppose. But it seems I have an easier time talking at other venues as invited talks where I don't have to jump through hoops to justify the content to a group of people who should already know me, and the quality of my content/context. For instance, I have an easier time talking at MAAWG, ACM Workshops, APWG Counter eCrime workshops, etc. And I say this not for my own issues here, but for others, as well. I have had some very fond memories of NANOG, insofar as it being an effective venue -- I'm not so sure any more. It's just not relevant in its current form. I guess what I'm trying to say, is that in your efforts to be effective, you are being self-defeating. Just one observation. Dismiss at will. - - ferg - -- Paul Ferguson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - -- vijay gill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Really, reading this thread has left me stupider. I guess instead of focusing on things like the lightweight agenda, abysmal content and actual value to be had from NANOG, I'm glad someone finally said it. This is partially the reason why I don't bother with NANOG any more. It is governed and bullied by a group of people who think way too much of themselves, and in fact, consume way too much bandwidth discussing themselves. Some of us have networks to tend, and other more pressing issues. $.02, - - ferg -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.3 (Build 3017) wj8DBQFHCxKxq1pz9mNUZTMRAu4yAKCAB7ljABvNgYF1CFLEEUw4R+/7GwCeOSPO ROlMoMezrNnWK4ZvU6XSqH0= =bOQE -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Fergie, a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
