Re: [Nanog-futures] Admission for Committee Members
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:00:35AM -0700, Steve Gibbard wrote: [snip] Here's my problem with this line of reasoning: We've got a serious volunteer shortage. In our upcoming board election, we have four candidates for four open seats. As one of those candidates, I'd like to think that this is because everybody really wants to vote for us, but the most I can really hope for is that being on the board sounds like a lot of work and nobody objects to us strongly enough to want to volunteer. I humbly suggest that the folks in office should take a strong hand in drumming up candidates. Especially as they will know what sort of skills will be needed for what's on the horizon. I presume it is still similar, but when I was SC Chair, homework during the election period for all committee members was recruiting volunteers and participating in a schedule rotation of notices to mail to get different names in the nanog-announce mail stream. I'm sure there are better methods of spreading the load. For the Program Committee, which makes NANOG conferences what they are, the shortage is far worse. We have seven open seats and four candidates. ...and the nomination period is still open. ISTR that many nominations roll in during the meeting, when the drumbeating continues. It seems pretty clear that the incentive structures we have now aren't working. Those arguing here that they'd be volunteering without any further incentives are not currently volunteering, and neither are very many other people. See previous paragraphs. How much outreach to new blood, or to people who ran before, has occured? Simply contacting those who ran before, but hadn't served and still had and interest built up a nice slate of solid candidates in years past. I did notice that in the change to AMS, we no longer have the membership list published, so it is hard for us on the outside to know who is eligible to be nominated. There are many likely causes of this. Partly, I think we have some volunteer fatigue. There's been a whole lot of work, done by a whole lot of people, over the last couple of years to get the new organization off the ground and to keep the old one running, and a lot of those people would be quite justified in being burned out. But if NANOG is going to go on, we need to get people to So, what do we do? I'm not convinced that allowing people to do large amounts of work towards putting on the conference in lieu of paying meeting fees would create a privileged class of participants. If anything, getting to simply pay meeting fees and show up seems like a relative bargain, and charging people to attend an event they've helped to produce seems tacky. But, given that a lot of peoples' employers pay their meeting fees anyway, and might value their employees' time more than they'd value the savings on meeting fees, I'm not sure how many new people it would get us. Observations: - encoding in the bylaws is micromanagement we've sought to avoid previously - blanket 'perks' regardless of level of participation are eventually abused - SC chair [and PC chair?] have had some discretion in doling out at least one comp registration per meeting - hardship and reward [as you suggest] from the chairs is a logical extension of such discretion ...so if anything must be codified, IMO it should be that the Chairs have the ability to waive registration fees for committee members as they see fit. Then no only do you incentive to volunteer, but ongoing incentive to actually produce. Ideally, we'll get a flood of volunteers in the next few days, and this issue will become moot. I started asking around yesterday for a volunteer to replace me as Membership Chair, and within minutes had found somebody bursting with ideas and eager to take on the role. I'd love to see some people who would show that level of excitement towards the NANOG program. Excellent way to demonstrate that outreach is key. But if that doesn't happen, I'm looking for ideas. Are free or discounted conference fees for volunteers the right answer? Is there some other incentive that would work better? Are there people we should be reaching out to and trying to recruit who we haven't? Ideas, please. See above for a minor adjustment that might meet this need. Also: - At least the membership should see the member list to know who to poke (behind a member portal is there is paranoia about publishing member names). - While that is presently out of reach, more visible outreach by those on the inside who *do* know. - What plans/campaigns have the Board generated/received from our staff (if any) and why were they rejected. Cheers! Joe -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE / NewNOG ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Admission for Committee Members
On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 07:56:20PM -0400, Dorian Kim wrote: On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 11:30:49AM -0400, David Temkin wrote: All, I would like to propose an amendment to the bylaws for the coming election cycle. The various committees put in many tireless hours of effort to bring a content rich, well attended, well sponsored meeting to our attendees. In return they generally get a free lunch and a brief thank you. I propose that any committee member who attends six or more committee meetings between NANOG meetings is entitled to a free registration for the upcoming meeting. Attendance would be gauged by the chair of the committee and this would only be available as a benefit to sanctioned committees. I'll keep this short and sweet, however I feel that this is the least that we can do for our hard working committee members. I would ask that the Board sponsor this for the upcoming election, however if they choose not to I think we can put this out to petition. Speaking strictly as an individual, I don't believe this is necessary at all. While I thank those who work hard by volunteering, most of those individuals would be attending NANOG regardless. /aol -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE / NewNOG ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
[Nanog-futures] admins@ autoresponse
[pardon for the use of futures as meta, but no other way to be sure it doesn't lay unattended in a filter somewheres] From http://www.nanog.org/governance/communications/ You can reach all of us at adm...@nanog.org. In response to message last night sent from my nanog@ list-subscribed address: Subject: Your message to Admins awaits moderator approval [snip] The reason it is being held: Post by non-member to a members-only list [snip] ...if this is intended behavior then you want to customize the responder to make it look more like that, otherwise it looks like the community can't reach the communications committee unless they are pre-approved. Cheers! Joe -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] New Membership-WG Draft
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 05:39:56PM -0700, Jay Hennigan wrote: [snip] There isn't a test, investigation, or vetting. The member decides if they have an interest and understands the reason for membership. If there isn't vetting, why does the board approve membership? No other nonprofit [advocacy, professional, charity] to which I either belong or contribute has this kind of barrier to taking my money. -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Memberships, Bylaws and other election matters
An interesting exercise might be to compare the cost of a vote (thus far the only membership benefit) today and as proposed. -Today Students: Max 60/yr (20 per meeting) at $50 per (minimum $100 / 2 years) Standard: $225 (minimum 1 meeting at $450 / 2 years) Freebies: SC-approved press representatives [no max] (2 per year, maybe?) Variable PC-approved presenters/panelists/moderators (40-60 per meeting with overlap so maybe 110/year) Individuals from the hosts, sponsors and Merit staff (easily 50 per meeting, with greater overlap so maybe 100/yearn) as determined by those organizations -Proposed Students: No maximum number, $50/yr Standard: $100/year Freebies: variable board-approved (projected as a small number per year), though several board members have clearly said they won't pull the trigger while it is still a concern So students don't change, though more can participate. Regular people's cost to participate decreases by more than half, and no matter how you slice it there are tremendously fewer votes just given away by various people involved, easily offsetting a small number of projected 'lifetime' memberships. Personally, I think enfrachising a larger segment of the community isn't a Bad Thing. What's wrong with lowering the financial and meatspace* barrier to entry? Regarding concern over lifetime memberships, many nonprofits I support allow me to buy N years of membership in advance. If lifetime were merely changed to a decade pre-purchase of membership, would the folks who think it is a bad idea suddenly see it as ok? That would serve the budgetary need though I suspect there might be less people asctually choosing it. Cheers, Joe * to be pedantic, one needn't even show up, just register once within two years. -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] NANOG Transition Plan track will be webcast
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 09:39:51AM -0700, Steve Feldman wrote: On Jun 14, 2010, at 9:16 AM, Randy Bush wrote: For those interested, the NANOG Transition Plan session, scheduled for 4:30-6:00pm Monday, will be webcast. ahem. i presume this will not interfere with the webcasting of the security session. The security session (as with most BOFs/tracks) are not typically webcast or recorded, in order not not discourage candid conversation. It's been that way as long as I can remember. I believe what was an economic concern (back when getting more cameras was such a one) originally kept non-plenary off camera. These days, talk submitters (I believe) have a tickbox to select if/if not, and both peering and security moderators tend to tick not. What I'd love to see would be an icon or column on the agenda showing per-talk if it is intended to be streamed (ie, the submitter's selection be propagated through to the community) such that remote participants can know in advamce if this or that item will be available to them. Cheers, Joe -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Smoke at NANOG meetings
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 07:34:47PM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote: [snip] I would be keen to see this restriction put in-place, but unless you are hosting the meeting and picking the venue, it may be challenging. Until we're swimming in competing hosting offers, it may not be feasible to guarantee. The best bet might be to step up and host! :-) It should also be noted that the event in the DR was as bad or worse than the venue in Dearborn as you had to pass through the casino to reach the meeting space. And Vegas and ... NANOG48: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans_in_the_United_States#.C2.A0Texas NANOG49: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans_in_the_United_States#.C2.A0California NANOG50: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans_in_the_United_States#.C2.A0Georgia Joe, not a fan of big tobacco but knows how to leave a room that makes him cough -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 08:25:10AM -0700, kris foster wrote: On May 12, 2009, at 7:32 AM, Jared Mauch wrote: On May 12, 2009, at 9:10 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote: some 'action'. That action is usually like using reload as a workaround to a hardware problem instead of replacing the buggy code. The result is what we keep discussing: same stuff different day and a not so job for Kris et al. How about a filtered(proactive) -and- an unfiltered(reactive) feed? This is an interesting idea. Glad I get blank stares every time I suggest this. Those of us who have advocated multiple lists tend to get met with no one will move/use/join, it will still get polluted, etc gripes. Since bits and disk are relatively cheap, I'm definitely a fan of a trial balloon; heck, just go for usenet tradition and call it nanog-moderated even if it is simply agressive filters and not human moderation. Cheers! Joe -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Fwd: ADMIN: Reminder on off-topic threads
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 05:46:50AM -0400, Rich Kulawiec wrote: On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 09:43:22PM -0700, Paul Ferguson wrote: [snip] In any event, I think security-related issues are much more on topic than ARIN IPv4 policy foo. I think I mildly disagree with this. The allocation of chunks of IPv4 space to dedicated abusers, and the hijacking of chunks of IPv4 space by abusers, are security-related issues. So if you mean ARIN IPv4 policy in the sense of what their policies and procedures are, then I agree with you; if you mean it in the sense of what the real-world consequences are, then I'm not so sure. Same here. Our ongoing problem (if one would call it that) is being a successful, large-tent organization. -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Fwd: ADMIN: Reminder on off-topic threads
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 09:32:13PM -0700, Paul Ferguson wrote: [snip] I don't mind gentle reminders, but non-specific gestures cloud the issue and sometimes appear hypocritical. I could easily name a few other threads on NANOG currently that I believe are off-topic, so if the MLC is going to send gentle-reminders, could it please be a bit more fair specific in it's reminders? That is all I ask, because right now, it seems rather arbitrary. I know in the past there was definitely a great deal of effort to balance the private reminders with the public to avoid noise and interminable meta- conversations. My impression is we're still seeing that balancing effort, so I'm boggled by the comment. A public reminder about three elements of a couple threads which were heading off the beam seems sane rather than 'hypocritical' or 'arbitrary'. If you've a specific suggestion for what can be done, the please share it. I think the MLC has been doing a good job and would be more than open to specific, constructive critique. Cheers! Joe -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
[Nanog-futures] Conference Network Experiment policy
Heya, There have been periodic inquiries for network-based experiments on the NANOG conference network. While there is a serious benefit to be gained by experimenters exposing their projects to the NANOG attendees, there is a need to balance that with meeting attendees having a functional network during the conference. We'd like to hear the community's opinion on this. The SC has drafted a Network Experiments policy based on prior experience and what we think our conference attendees need to have available while on-site. Please see the attachment below and share your opinions and suggestions. Cheers! -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE Criteria for Network Tests During a NANOG Meeting Members of the community who wish to test, trial or otherwise run an experiment on the live network at a NANOG meeting may submit their plan to the NANOG Steering Committee (SC) for consideration. Running on the live meeting network will expose your experiment to hundreds of highly skilled IP network specialists. Since this has the possibility of being highly disruptive to the meeting attendees, there are basic requirements which apply to all applicants. The SC will evaluate submissions, conferring as needed with the Program Committee, Merit staff, and the hosting entity as needed through each meeting???s engineering team. In short, to be approved there must be adequate return on the effort to the community as a whole and the meeting attendees in particular. The experiment MUST: - Be voluntary rather than compulsory, therefore an incentive for attendees' participation is encouraged. - Fill a need or directly address a question of interest to the NANOG community, ideally of specific relevance to the meeting attendees. - Provide a benefit to the attendees through their participation. - Have clear measurement of the success or at least effectiveness of the experiment, which will be able to be at least summarized and related in a lightning talk submission, if not a full presentation. - Have finite and well-defined requirements for support and assistance of Merit and the NANOG local meeting host, including but not limited to space, power, addressing/number resources, equipment, security and staff time. - Treat any observed or collected data (be it raw usage, vague aggregate, anonymized, etc.,) as ephemeral and of use only for public, noncommercial presentations. An experimenter must send the following to the SC 90 days (three months) prior to a meeting to be considered for that meeting: - a description of the purpose/goals of the experiment; - detailed network diagram[s] and bandwidth requirement; - any relevant configuration examples; and - a statement regarding resources the proposer is committing to supply. -30- ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] new website
On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 12:43:54PM -0700, Scott Weeks wrote: [snip] I agree. Great job! It even works perfectly fine with Firefox on FreeBSD with javascript not allowed via NoScript. Impressive. (It takes a lot to make me say that! :-) Brian @merit did a great job taking pains to placate cantankerous SC members with lynx/links tests and accessibility concerns. -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] default routes question or any way to do the rebundant
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 03:15:00AM -0400, Donald Stahl wrote: [snip] If that's the case then might I sugggest changing the pages that discuss what is, and what is not, apropriate for the mailing list? Those questions were not relevant to large network operators but if that is no longer the target of NANOG, then so be it. Large network operators appears no where in the charter (http://www.nanog.org/charter.html) nor AUP (http://www.nanog.org/aup.html). While I agree that questions on much rudimentary things (and vendor-specific for that matter) are better *served* in other fora, they certainly aren't off-target. Being awash in the queries would be a different matter, as they'd be a simple referral to FAQ/wiki. Given the desire for the list and the conference to mirror each other, I'd point out that 'basic' topics are often covered in tutorials and BoFs at the conference. As for jhawk... try finding the last time he was a conference attendee. Cheers, Joe -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 03:12:55AM -0600, Chris Malayter wrote: Greetings All, What's the deal with the Peering BOF for NY? I've heard rumors running wild that we're not going to have one, we're going to have one but Bill isn't going to run it, to we're moving to a peering track and a track bases system. As far as I know, the PC hasn't met to discuss the agenda for 43; if anyone has been other than drumming up talks, they are likely the ones jumping the gun. I would challenge anyone to look at the agenda just passed, past ones with multipart BoFs and Tutorials, et al and not see tracks. Other than the word (and implied more space), what is so scary about 'tracks'? (no, that's a serious question) [snip] If nothing else, I would imagine that the numbers continuing to grow over time should show that the interest has not been lost, and that the people like the format and the effort that Bill puts into it. I don't think any suggestion of more times and formal slot on an agenda is anything but indication there is a great deal of support for peering items, but the surveys provide direct feedback. The headcount in the room (170+ this go round) IMO speak to needing more resources than a small ad-hoc bof room. When a BoF demonstrates such strong traction as the many year recurring, many hour consuming security and peering bofs, perhaps the legacy sentiment of past PCs need to be shrugged off and these be allowed to 'grow up' to larger agenda space. If the PC is going to axe the BOF, I would like some transparency and explantion to the rest of us as to the rationelle so we can have it in the public forum for debate. I think anyone who thinks that review of standing program elements like the rest of the program is the same as axing anything needs their head examined. If people don't want to be transparent and share what they want to present to the PC, what puts them above the rest of the presenters? Arbitrary program selection was one of the pre-open-process PC we all wanted to move away from, right? Joe, speaking for himself, and thinking the program submission tool is open so anyone interested in getting content submitted for NANOG 43 certainly can! -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
