On Sat, 19 Feb 2005, Joe Provo wrote:
: On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 10:19:45PM +0200, Gadi Evron wrote:
: Scott Weeks wrote:
: On Thu, 17 Feb 2005, Gadi Evron wrote:
:
: : want to see at this headache of a position, or we do it openly on the
:
: Yes, publically. Please.
:
: Publically -
Merit has setup the nanog-futures list and made it public and open from
the
outset.. that is the forum to take this discussion to but focus on
HAS set up? I thought they were going to set it up. Hmmm
Well, what do you know, here it is at the bottom of this page...
[for those not reading nanOg-reform, this is a
hidden reference to my yesterday's post]
Reading nanog-reform? Is there some kind of list? Let me have
a look at http://www.nanog-reform.org. Nope, nothing here but
old news.
http://www.nanog-reform.org/cgi-bin/twiki/view/NANOGReform/DraftBylaws
On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 11:05:03AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Reading nanog-reform? Is there some kind of list? Let me have
a look at http://www.nanog-reform.org. Nope, nothing here but
old news.
The nanog-reform list was announced both on nanog@ and
during the Sunday night
Aha! So there really is more stuff hidden away on that
site for the chosen few. Perception is reality, eh?
People, please, gain some perspective here. Nobody wants the
thankless job of maintaining a mailing list that badly.
Perhps I'm being too subtle here. I fully realize that
all
Most of the note below is just a rant, similar in form to the dozen notes
by a handful of posters over the weekend here, on NANOG-Reform
NANOG-Futures. C'mon folks, refocus that energy into doing something
professional and positive for the NANOG community.
Please cease demands for
Arhchive here michael:
http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog-futures/
not sure if its complete yet but i know merit are trying to include the first
few messages
nanog-reform here:
http://mailarchive.oct.nac.net/nanog-reform/maillist.html
again, dont know how complete it is. understand
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
[ snip ]
As I was browsing the archive, I
noticed my post and his and another one from William Leizon
that quoted
mine have been removed from it.
From what I understand, the archive feature wasn't turned on until
just before the first post that was
-Original Message-
From: Bill Nash [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 9:53 PM
To: Hannigan, Martin
Cc: William Allen Simpson; nanog@merit.edu
Subject: RE: NANOG Changes
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
[ snip ]
As I was browsing
All:
Reminder, if you sent an email regarding NANOG changes to either list
(NANOG or NANOG-Futures) between Thursday (Feb. 17) and Saturday (Feb. 20),
the list archive was not working yet. Sorry about the disruption and loss.
Please resend your email privately to [EMAIL PROTECTED] We will make
On 21 Feb 2005, at 10:06, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
nanog-reform here:
http://mailarchive.oct.nac.net/nanog-reform/maillist.html
again, dont know how complete it is. understand also, the list has
been open to
subscriptions, the reason for creating it was to allow a bunch of
people to kick
some
William Allen Simpson wrote:
Please, the interim-moderators should moderate, and the
bylaws drafters should draft, and they should be separate.
It's the usual difference between the Chair and the Editor
(or Raporteur, or Recording Secretary).
I introduced this important division to the IETF
It appears that they do not share your view, by reading nanog-futures.
The new mailing list administration has already demonstrated that it had
zero credibility:
Yesterday, I posted something that displeased Martin Hanningan and was
told that I needed his permission. As I was browsing the
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Michel Py
Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2005 4:20 PM
To: William Allen Simpson; nanog@merit.edu
Subject: RE: NANOG Changes
William Allen Simpson wrote:
Please, the interim-moderators should
Hi Gadi,
Gadi Evron wrote:
Please read the below text in full, if you are going to read
any of it. I use a lot of cynicism to get my point across.
Same here. Besides cynicism, I also use (and possibly abuse) sarcasm.
I haven't been involved with the NANOG reform initiative,
and haven't
It should be noted that Michel is speaking only for himself, and not for
the nanog-reform group (and I haven't seen any concensus among the
nanog-reform group yet on the draft bylaws that Michel is referring to).
I am also speaking only for myself on this.
I'd been waiting to hear that the
On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 10:19:45PM +0200, Gadi Evron wrote:
Scott Weeks wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005, Gadi Evron wrote:
: want to see at this headache of a position, or we do it openly on the
Yes, publically. Please.
Publically - on NANOG itself, please.
Please no. Speaking as
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Joe Provo
Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2005 7:22 AM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: NANOG Changes
On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 10:19:45PM +0200, Gadi Evron wrote:
Scott Weeks wrote:
On Thu, 17
On 02/19/05, Steve Gibbard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd been waiting to hear that the nanog-futures list had actually been
created before urging that this discussion move there. Since it sounds
like it has been, now would probably be a good time to move the
discussion.
*agree*
I promised some people that I'd comment publically on the moderation change.
Selecting Steve's message at random as a place to start, let me just quote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Gibbard)
Subject: Re: NANOG Changes
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 01:04:51 -0800 (PST)
Speaking only for myself
Paul Vixie wrote:
... I just wish that all the political I's would get
dotted and all the political T's would get crossed. Perception isn't
*actually* reality, but in politics (which this is) the difference
between perception and reality is just not worth discussing.
Speaking as someone with
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005, William Allen Simpson wrote:
Paul Vixie wrote:
... I just wish that all the political I's would get dotted and all the
political T's would get crossed. Perception isn't *actually* reality, but in
politics (which this is) the difference between perception and reality
William Allen Simpson wrote:
And I especially like Paul's point that those serving as the
moderators be disqualified from serving in another position
for at least a year.
Ditto.
Michel.
Paul Vixie wrote:
I am uncomfortable having folks from the nanog-reform
community accepting responsibility for provisional
moderation (a form of interim governance),
So am I. However, I will point out that these individuals have acted
with precipitation (which is the correct term to use when
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
Merit has setup the nanog-futures list and made it public and open from the
outset.. that is the forum to take this discussion to but focus on what
you want not whats past or interim.
Okay I just double checked the archive before saying this but
On Sat, 2005-02-19 at 01:25 +, Paul Vixie wrote:
I'd like these moderators to stand down from any elected position
for a period of at least a year from the formation of the new
permanent governance structure.
Paul makes very good solid points. One thing that I would add, having
First, the NANOG list will now be moderated by a volunteer group that
includes Marty Hannigan, Steve Gibbard, and Chris Malayter. Many thanks
to these folks for taking on this role in upholding the list's AUP.
Just a small comment from someone looking from the outside of the NANOG
political
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005, Gadi Evron wrote:
First, the NANOG list will now be moderated by a volunteer group that
includes Marty Hannigan, Steve Gibbard, and Chris Malayter. Many thanks
to these folks for taking on this role in upholding the list's AUP.
Leaving silly disclaimers aside, how
Speaking only for myself (and certainly not for Merit):
The NANOG Reform group (http://www.nanog-reform.org), which has already
gone on record supporting an open and democratic NANOG, was asked for
volunteers. I think all three of us are looking at this as a temporary
assignment until the
Hi everyone - apologies for a rather long message, but I wanted to
bring you up-to-date on some steps the Program Committee and Merit
have taken to evolve NANOG since our community meeting in Las Vegas.
*Many thanks* to those of you who attended and gave us feedback - we
learned a lot and
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005, Gadi Evron wrote:
Perfect, but let's not repeat past mistakes.
Let's set a date for this temporary government to expire, and start
discussing how the process of a more permanent governing body will be
achieved. I think 3 months is the longest we should decide on (not
something has to be arbitrary in the absence of a government, its a chicken and
egg. i think you're looking for problems that arent there - do you or anyone
have issue with the progress thus far? if not the question is moot.
My question was answered. The current government which was not chosen
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005, Gadi Evron wrote:
: want to see at this headache of a position, or we do it openly on the
Yes, publically. Please.
scott
Scott Weeks wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005, Gadi Evron wrote:
: want to see at this headache of a position, or we do it openly on the
Yes, publically. Please.
Publically - on NANOG itself, please.
Thank you Betty and the whole NANOG/Merit group for making great decisions
on moving forward. This will help NANOG evolve. I'd like to ask that
folks who know long time, clue heavy contributors who have left to return.
Merit has reached out, we need to as well.
Thanks,
scott
35 matches
Mail list logo
