Re: [Nanog-futures] Transition update

2010-06-02 Thread Jo Rhett
On May 28, 2010, at 1:44 PM, Jay Hennigan wrote: I'm beginning to feel a lot like a mushroom. Am I alone in this perception? Then perhaps you should stop standing in a pile of ? Sorry, you set that up, it had to be said ;-) I myself, am getting fairly tired of people coming back in

Re: [Nanog-futures] Transition update

2010-06-02 Thread Jay Hennigan
On 6/2/10 12:08 AM, Jo Rhett wrote: On May 28, 2010, at 1:44 PM, Jay Hennigan wrote: I'm beginning to feel a lot like a mushroom. Am I alone in this perception? Then perhaps you should stop standing in a pile of ? The wasn't there when I stood here on April 14, it was piled

Re: [Nanog-futures] Transition update

2010-06-02 Thread Martin Hannigan
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 3:01 AM, Andy Davidson a...@nosignal.org wrote: On 28 May 2010, at 08:15, Steve Feldman wrote: The Transition Team would like to assure everyone that we are working hard to ensure a smooth transition from Merit to the new organization. Members of the Transition

Re: [Nanog-futures] Transition update

2010-06-02 Thread Daniel Golding
It would probably be best done in conjunction with the next election. 2010/6/2 Martin Hannigan hanni...@gmail.com On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 3:01 AM, Andy Davidson a...@nosignal.org wrote: On 28 May 2010, at 08:15, Steve Feldman wrote: The Transition Team would like to assure everyone that

Re: [Nanog-futures] Transition update

2010-06-02 Thread Jo Rhett
I don't deny that you have some very good questions. I agree that forthcoming transparency would be an excellent thing. But having been through the creation of a new entity and separation from the old entity before, I can see a large number of factors which might be making these things

Re: [Nanog-futures] Transition update

2010-06-02 Thread Jay Hennigan
On 6/2/10 11:29 AM, Jo Rhett wrote: I don't deny that you have some very good questions. I agree that forthcoming transparency would be an excellent thing. But having been through the creation of a new entity and separation from the old entity before, I can see a large number of factors

Re: [Nanog-futures] Transition update

2010-06-02 Thread Daniel Golding
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Jay Hennigan j...@west.net wrote: We are members of a community. Some our leaders are proposing to make a very significant change in the governance of that community. Others involved in the governance of the community state that they were not informed of,

Re: [Nanog-futures] Transition update

2010-06-02 Thread Jay Hennigan
On 6/2/10 1:30 PM, Daniel Golding wrote: Merit is not our boss. They are not and have never been the leaders of the North American network operations community. No one elected them and no one voted for them. As a non-profit, they took over from NSF in administering the successor to the

Re: [Nanog-futures] Transition update

2010-06-02 Thread joel jaeggli
Um insofar as I'm aware Andy Rosenzweig is still the Marit member on the SC, I generally assume that we he states his opinion or merit's position that he is doing so in his capacity as merit's representative on the SC. joel On 2010-06-02 15:20, Pete Templin wrote: Jay Hennigan wrote: On

Re: [Nanog-futures] Transition update

2010-06-02 Thread Pete Templin
joel jaeggli wrote: Um insofar as I'm aware Andy Rosenzweig is still the Marit member on the SC, I generally assume that we he states his opinion or merit's position that he is doing so in his capacity as merit's representative on the SC. That's my point. Merit has numerous people working