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 "G&A". 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/>
