[Nanog-futures] Moving Forward - What kind of NANOG do we want?
I would actually like to steer this to a NANOG-Future topic -- what kind of NANOG do we want to have? Sorry this is a little long, but I wanted to share some data points and context. An organization is defined by how it behaves. Just to provide a little historical context and data for the discussion here... When I was chairing NANOG in the early days, we tried a bunch of new things, including beer-n-gear. We pretty much had to use the hotel services and catering - the costs were pretty high but the sponsors seemed to have the marketing money to get in front of the attendees. Then we started seeing more quasi-commercial activities we hadn't seen so much in the gov't-sponsored NSFNET days : 1) We started seeing folks having suite parties, in a couple cases these competed with the agenda or with the sponsored socials or BOFs. When I asked about their motivation, just to understand why, the answers for having these parties instead of participating in beer-n-gear were varied but seemed centered around the cost - that their little gathering was maybe one-tenth the cost of participating in beer-n-gear and everyone seemed to have a better time in this informal albeit cramped environment. To me, these parties felt more like a college parties vs. a formal event, and I personally liked the feel of these parties too. We (the NANOG team at Merit) had to decide how to deal with this - (and newNOG should decide its attitudes on these types of things as well as it defines its culture). We had really three options: a) do we play hard ball somehow to prevent the parties? The hotel didn't like them either as they didn't generate any $ for them. b) Or let it slide by quietly ignoring (not condoning) the behavior? c) Or do we enjoy the party with the rest of the participants? What actually happened was that people Merit folks were simply not invited to these parties for fear of what their attitude toward the party could be. There was a kind of hope we don't get caught on their side and our (personal) desire to socialize (be invited to the party) like everyone else while (Merit NANOG hat) making sure events didn't clash and the beer-n-gear sponsors didn't bail on the formal events. I think during my stead we slide towards enjoying the parties that we heard about, and a sort of *unwritten rule* emerged that the parties shouldn't clash with the scheduled agenda events. There was another kind of awkwardness as folks wanted to not clash, but didn't know when things occurred, so these unauthorized party organizers awkwardly had to keep checking the agenda to make sure their little parties didn't clash while not tipping their hat to Merit that they were doing something unsanctioned here. Even with this awkwardness, everyone kind of agreed and things kinda ran smoothly. NewNOG will have to decide how to handle this type of thing as well. This wasn't documented anywhere before, so I thought I would share it. 2) We started seeing people quietly passing out logo'd and funny t-shirts, one of the benefits we marketed to beer-n-gear sponsorship prospects. This too, during my time we let slide. What were we to do - police the event for T-shirts, vendor giveaways not done at the sanctioned times? What fun would that be? And for a 501.3c not-for-profit staff (not work for serious money compensation or stock), being aggressive about things like this tends to go against the personality grain. 3) And yes, over the years there have always been a few crashers - people attending the event without registering or paying. The question it seemed to me was the extent of the violation - how long were they there, did they eat or drink beer or get t-shirts at beer n gear, etc. In one incident we know about, a person stopped at the event to say hi in passing, was actually called to the mike to answer a question and then community name-and-shamed / chastised the person for not having paid. In another incident we know about, a person hung out in the lobby and was called out for reaping some of the benefits of NANOG (access to the population of people attending). To some it didn't matter that zero resources were consumed. In the recent incident, a person looking for a lunch date with a person he wouldn't recognize asked for help meeting the person. I assisted in his failed search. He was there for only a few minutes and left. One thing in common - These things sometimes causes some degree of uproar as everyone had an opinion as to where the line was. In most of these events, what seemed to cause the most problems to me was *how* the folks in charge of NANOG responded - if they did nothing, then people (especially people who paid with their own hard earned cash) felt a little cheated, and if the folks running things over reacted then the community responded with resentment of authority. This IMO was overreaction was one of the straws that broke the camel's back and helped roll
[Nanog-futures] NANOG Transition - How we got here
Hi all - I spoke up at the community meeting and during the NANOG Transition BOF at NANOG, trying to get a better understanding of what was happening with NANOG. I asked a few questions, and admittedly got caught up in the moment during some of the discussions. A couple folks got the impression that I was AGAINST the transition. To be clear - - - I am NOT against the transition (of NANOG from a Merit activity to a new organization more tightly directed by elected members of the community). My issues are with how we got here. As I stated before, in the first Steering Committee I was pushing for the same thing (See slide 12 Actual Results of my NANOGHIstory slides from NANOG 37 back in 2007). The idea that the elected Steering Committee was merely an advisory role or meeting attendee advocate role just didn't seem rational - it provided the 'transparency' but lacked the 'accountability' aspect that we all required from the post-NANOG revolution phase. As several folks mentioned, there are indeed different interests at play between Merit and the NANOG community, as there in any partnership. My feeling was (and is) that this advisory form of Steering Committee-Merit relationship is not as effective as it needs to be. So the end state of some form of self-governed NANOG can be better. At this NANOG I had conversations with the NANOG Steering Committee members and the Merit folks about what led to this immediate transition. Based on what I learned, we have here is a classic inter-group conflict that could have been better handled with a mediator and informal discussions. The goals should have been ensuring buy in to cooperative transition, defining a plan and timeline for an orderly and coordinated community-driven transition plan. As is typical, the rationale from both sides included exaggerated perceptions about motivations and many assumptions about how the other side would react to various actions. In any case, instead, both sides have left the community with a transition where 1) the broader community was not brought along for the ride with identified problems and proposed solutions, it was a 'done deal' (this would have taken time) 2) the plan for this new NANOG was not shared broadly with the community (was not really developed fully), and yet 3) both sides agree the transition HAS TO HAPPEN now. So, as a community member, my opinion is that we lost an opportunity to do something really cool here: we could have taken the time to develop a newer and better NANOG organization while demonstrating the principles that led to the first revolution: transparency, accountability, as a newer, better NANOG, all done in a community-driven fashion. This would have taken time and some work, but it would have been pretty cool. But the past doesn't matter now, so Where are we now? Fundamentally, we all agree that the transition will happen, it will happen in a couple NANOGs, we all want it to be a success, we will try some new untested things. Just wanted to share where I am coming from, and I agree that the discussion should now be about what we should do. I look forward to that. Bill Sidenote - I would share in some of the blame in that we in the Steering Committees to date did not candidly describe some of these frictions in our meeting minutes; instead we all glossed over differences, and patted ourselves on the back for the progress and success of the meetings. It would have been helpful feedback back to the community how this SC-PC-MLC-NANOG experiment actually worked and where it didn't. As a result of lack of candor, we have nothing to point to, nothing for the successor SC to review that highlighted relationship challenges, what was tried to overcome those challenges, etc... in short, there is an absence of institutional memory for the future SCs and the community to highlight the problems and why the transition is the best solution to the problems identified. ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
[Nanog-futures] Original NANOG Business Plan
Just to close the loop and for those interested in walking down memory lane I found the original NANOG Business Plan (heh) and put it up here: http://peering.drpeering.net/archive/Original-NANOG-BizPlan.htm The original excel sheet is there as well: http://peering.drpeering.net/archive/Original-NANOG-BizPlan.xls . Summary The original NANOG registration fee was $135 per person (up from $0 when it was the Regional Techs meeting and/or NANOG funded by NSF). I was charged with creating a cost-recovery business plan, and we accomplished break-even by using fractions of 4 peoples time; a total of 1.6 Full-time Equivalents . This group ran the NANOG activity, heavily weighted towards the lower salaried admin support side. Merit salaries as a 501.3c were pretty minimal too so that helped keep the salary expenses down. Back then we were just starting to work with hosts who took care of the hotel costs so we reimbursed some funds to the host, as the costs were so much more than when the host used their own facilities. (NANOG went from 100 to 400 pretty quickly.) The University of Michigan had a 52.5% overhead to cover portions of office space, keep the lights on etc. as all UofM activities contributed to. Over time there were tons of other little overhead things that NANOG had to contribute to, like the servers and upgrades for the mailing lists, sysAdmin overhead for the team, etc. Lots of little bits of expenses here and there were allocated across projects, and projects benefited from having access to the folks spread across multiple projects. It gets a little complicated pretty quick with fractional FTEs and shared costs. So, the point it NANOG started out pretty minimal 15 years ago, bringing in about $150K to cover the costs of running NANOG at about $150K per year. I'm still searching for the stats study I did that showed a very low correlation between the quality of the presentations and attendee satisfaction with NANOG, leading to the conclusion that the value of NANOG is proportional to other non-presentation activities. Bill On May 31, 2010, at 1:28 PM, William Norton wrote: As to whether this is the right thing to do or not, today I see two sides: -- When I was on the first NANOG SC, I right away wanted to make NANOG a separate entity. Part of my rationale was that the community had developed this elaborate and relatively fixed (codified) structure (SC, PC, Mailing List folks, charter, etc.) but had no organization to control. In my mind, the NANOG SC was an *advisory* board, and Merit could do whatever they wanted to really; NANOG was always fundamentally a Merit activity. I felt that the true SC should be allowed to drive and direct the boat, not merely be on the bridge suggesting what the passengers might like to see during the cruise. On the other hand, the boat needs a captain, not a committee of captains. I believe things worked pretty well when NANOG was chaired properly by an individual. I for one like to see changes, swift decisive changes. Trying new things is key to evolving. This is an agility that is very difficult for a committee to do; a group can always come up with more reasons not to try something that might fail than to try and learn from the mistake. Also, from a selfish and lazy perspective, Merit has a lot of what is needed to make NANOG happen, pretty much on auto-pilot. All the gear, staff to monitor/manage, accept credit cards, reserve hotels, network setup/tear down and record/archive, etc. All of these things should exist in the final state of the transition, and this is a ton of work. I think Dan Golding himself said in the last community meeting that the NANOG organizational structure is in place and we can just attending without having to worry about this stuff. I agree. And, the path of least resistance is to stay on the current path making changes as needed. I wonder if some other options were considered. For example, --- 1) Option #1: Stay with Merit - Identify the core issues that bother this Steering Committee, and apply pressure the change things to meet those expectations. I apologize if this has happened and I missed the discussion BTW - the NANOG-Futures list should have been active this whole time for these discussions about the real problems encountered with the community governance model. The Steering Committees to date have not used this valuable community tool effectively; sensitivities aside, a lot more should see the light of day for effective governance lest the population tune out. 2) Option #2: I know that ARIN had expressed to me interest in merging even back when I started chairing NANOG in 1995. They have deep pockets and could play a role here. 3) Option #3: One
[Nanog-futures] Did I miss the announcement?
Hi all - I must have missed the announcement about NANOG changing hands. Can someone point me to the URL where the background, motivation, and plan are described to the NANOG Community? Thanks. Bill ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Did I miss the announcement?
I do look forward to hear what Don has to say, but it sounds like Merit is the passive one here - we will do what the community wants and all that. It seems like the side that has ambitions to take over the meeting is actually the one in the spotlight to demonstrate to the community that it has a plan and will do a better job. Bill On May 31, 2010, at 1:16 PM, Ren Provo ren.pr...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Bill, I suspect that Merit, with stimulus funding in hand, may have other non-NANOG interests at this point. I hope you are able to attend the community meeting and that Don Welch will clarify Merit's long-term interest. Cheers, -ren 2010/5/31 William Norton bill.nor...@gmail.com: ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Did I miss the announcement?
On May 31, 2010, at 3:27 PM, Ren Provo ren.pr...@gmail.com wrote: Pretty sure there is no need for Jerry Springer-antics. Give it time as requested by many. I haven't read this sentiment from anyone. URL please. This could be a mutual decision to prepare for the option you listed as 'c'. On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 6:13 PM, William Norton bill.nor...@gmail.com wrote: I do look forward to hear what Don has to say, but it sounds like Merit is the passive one here - we will do what the community wants and all that. It seems like the side that has ambitions to take over the meeting is actually the one in the spotlight to demonstrate to the community that it has a plan and will do a better job. Bill On May 31, 2010, at 1:16 PM, Ren Provo ren.pr...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Bill, I suspect that Merit, with stimulus funding in hand, may have other non-NANOG interests at this point. I hope you are able to attend the community meeting and that Don Welch will clarify Merit's long-term interest. Cheers, -ren 2010/5/31 William Norton bill.nor...@gmail.com: ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
[Nanog-futures] Countdown Timer (Was Re: The Peering BOF and the Fallout?)
On Feb 29, 2008, at 11:35 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote: On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 3:05 PM, Joel Jaeggli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Martin Hannigan wrote: [ clip ] The point is that something non obtrusive would be better. The soft lighting of cue lights seems less intrusive, but they sure are damn expensive. I think I'll swing by Radio Shack and see if I can rig up a system for $10 + 9v. Alternate attempts at improvisation are of course welcome... ;) I did swing by Radio Shack. It can be done, but then I thought about it and the professional queue system was $1500. I think that Merit should make an investment in it to improve the conference and speaking experience. It would be well worth it in terms of making things run smoother. One of the best conferences I have ever spoken at (Next Generation Networks) had an alternative solution. They had two monitors on the floor angled up towards the speaker, one of which ran something like Joel's full screen Powerpoint countdown timer. It showed with green background from 20:00 down to 05:00, then Yellow 05:00 down to 02:00, and finally red from 02:00 to 00:00 and then it stopped/flashed. At least that is my memory. It was non-obtrusive; you tended to see it when you looked out to the audience. They also found a way for the speaker not to have their laptop screen flipped open preventing the audience (or the video camera) from seeing their face. They made sure the speaker didn't have their badge on, as it would flash the lights reflection to the video camera. I also like that they wired the clip on microphones under your shirt so you would see the wires nor pull out the microphone accidentally. Very professional. Bill ___ 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 Feb 25, 2008, at 6:39 PM, Philip Smith wrote: : I should mention, as an FYI, that both Peering and Security BoFs have been integral part of APRICOT for some time. Apart from the plenary session, APRICOT has parallel tracks (we call them streams). The organisers of both tracks taking the lead in organising their content in conjunction with the APRICOT PC. So formalising the long running BoFs at NANOG in a similar way should really not be seen as a backward step. Philip - I agree mostly with what you have said, but the conjunction with the APRICOT PC is a bit looser than I think you imply. Here is what I see. For the last bunch of years I have been leading the APRICOT peering tracks, typically a half day, once a full day, and this year we lengthened it to 1.5 days and called it the APRICOT Peering Forum. At APRICOT, as with NANOG, there is a CFP. I try and put in a plea in there specifically for Peering Coordinators/Network Engineers to talk about their peering experiences, buildouts, lessons learned, interesting traffic patterns, etc. across Asia and into the US. I do this to bring in those doing or involved in peering to the forum. Each year there are about zero talks submitted to the peering track or forum through this process. So I spend three months emailing, cold calling, IRCing, and encouraging folks that I see at other conferences to share the interesting stories that they shared with me in the hallways at these events, at the APRICOT Peering Forum. Months before APRICOT they are more often interested but non committal, not sure if they will attend APRICOT. Typically in the last month or so, folks decide to attend and I work with them directly to share a topic and abstract and talk for the peering forum agenda. I've been using google docs as the repository for the agenda, and have kept Gaurab (APRICOT Program Chair) in the loop as I go through the panic(we don't have enough topics/speakers), logistics issues(speakers cancelled, got sick, etc), all the way through to the ok, phew, we have a good agenda cycle. Maybe behind the scenes the program chair has shared/reviewed/ discussed the peering forum agenda with others, but my perception, as with the NANOG Peering BOF the last few years, is that it has been more analogous to Here is a 90 minute block for the Peering community, Bill - do the right thing. So, more of a hands off approach than 'conjunction with the APRICOT PC' is my perception. As for the Peering BOF XVII thing... Every peering BOF we try something new. Successes include the great debates. Failures or Controversial issues include the transit surveys and the attempted humor in the Peering News. We make mistakes and learn, and try not to make the same mistake twice. By trying something new each time, we will of course stumble upon corresponding successes and failures. That flexibility, informality, last minute stuff from the field is what makes the Peering BOF fun. To me, the nanog-futures discussion is, how should/did this Steering Committee/Program Committee apparatus, respond to complaints that result from these failures? If there is to be a change to this very successful part of NANOG, is it because it has become a fixture of NANOG? To repair some perceived brokenness? To make it better or broader? What does the community think it should look like? Bill ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
