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 look forward to working with all of you to maintain the high standards we have come to expect from NANOG. For now, I'd like to announce a few changes that will get us started. 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. Susan Harris and Sue Joiner will represent Merit on the committee. Moderation decisions will be made by the entire group with a Chair appointed within the group to keep the peace:> Second, the NANOG Program Committee has elected a new chair - thank you Steve Feldman! Steve will now handle speaker communications that deal with content, and will make any last-minute decisions about what to include on the agenda. Third, we are creating a new email list, NANOG-futures, to discuss NANOG's evolution. We hope you'll participate - watch for a message later today or tomorrow about subscribing and a proposed time-line for moving us forward. Finally, to get your input on content for NANOG agendas, the Program Committee will soon release a survey asking for your feedback regarding the kind of talks you'd like to see at upcoming meetings. You'll find a link to the survey soon on the main NANOG page. Lastly, we've also published the results of the 2004 attendee surveys that were conducted in Miami, San Francisco, and Reston. (The Las Vegas results are still being tabulated.) All future survey results will continue to be posted as soon as they are available. In the past we've shared these results with the Program Committee, and hope making them widely available will give you some insight on what's been suggested so far, and what more still needs to be done. To that end, members of the PC and Merit will be doing a thoughtful analysis of previous survey data. Our goal is to provide responsive feedback in order to expedite the process up to full throttle. Thanks everyone - we'll be in touch. Betty
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
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 mess... I have nothing against these people, I know one of them and of them, and am sure they are good people. More over, they are volunteers and that's commendable. Leaving silly disclaimers aside, how did you collect candidates? How were these candidates selected? Who selected them? Reforms are nice, but unless I missed something, the main point you were speaking of was more visibility how of things are done. Why not let the community chose it's own side of the leadership, after all, nobody is contending:
list's AUP. Susan Harris and Sue Joiner will represent Merit on the committee. Moderation decisions will be made by the entire group with > a Chair appointed within the group to keep the peace:>
If all this was answered somewhere and I missed it, please consider this a troll and accept my apologies. Gadi.
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 did you collect candidates? How were these candidates selected? Who selected them?
Reforms are nice, but unless I missed something, the main point you were speaking of was more visibility how of things are done. Why not let the community chose it's own side of the leadership, after all, nobody is contending:
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 broader issues of NANOG governance are sorted out. -Steve
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 broader issues of NANOG governance are sorted out.
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 consider, the NANOG community has enough considering to do), we can do it in a month. I believe this is important enough, either someone who has been here forever steps forward and volunteers to get the emails of who people want to see at this headache of a position, or we do it openly on the list. A poll can be done later on. Gadi.
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 consider, the NANOG community has enough considering to do), we can do it in a month.
I believe this is important enough, either someone who has been here forever steps forward and volunteers to get the emails of who people want to see at this headache of a position, or we do it openly on the list. A poll can be done later on.
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. Steve
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 by the people" is provisional. All I personally care about now is a schedule, and by schedule I only mean a deadline for when this "government" will be replaced.. or succeeded if you like, as a Vulcan would say. Gadi.
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
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 someone for whom this place was a learning resource for many years until I was able to give back in kind, the 'governance' stuff may be important but it is not operational. Betty already said there will be governance and direction handled on nanog-futures. That's the Right Place. Joe, not a party to any of the reform stuff just someone who want to restore utilitity to the list. -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
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 - on NANOG itself, please. : : Please no. Speaking as someone for whom this place was a It was a mistake and I wish to recall it. scott
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: scg@gibbard.org (Steve Gibbard) Subject: Re: NANOG Changes Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 01:04:51 -0800 (PST)
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 broader issues of NANOG governance are sorted out.
First, I am speaking only for myself and not for my employer or for Merit or for the nanog-reform community. Having discharged my duties as co-moderator of the Las Vegas meeting, I'm now just another bozo on this bus. Second, I am uncomfortable having folks from the nanog-reform community accepting responsibility for provisional moderation (a form of interrim governance), since it's a nominal conflict of interest. I wish that Steve and Martin and others involved in drafting bylaws had refused to serve as interrim moderators. Failing that, 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. Third, I think that the current unilateral governance system where Merit decides what's the best thing to do after collecting input from interested parties (which, by the way, is exactly what the nanog-reform community set out to change) means that it's basically Merit's decision right now who moderates and how. I wish that Merit had reached out to the whole nanog@ community in search of interrim moderators rather than limiting its solicitation to the nanog-reform@ or any other subcommunity. Fourth, I do not think Merit or Steve or Martin or anyone else has any dark motives about this, and I'm sure that these interrim moderators will do a fine job. 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. Finally, to those among you who have counselled me against this contrarian position on the grounds that I might self-marginalize: you should go read the archives of this and perhaps other mailing lists. Me being an outlier will surprise approximately nobody.
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 more than a passing familiarity with practical political process, Paul's comments are correct. 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 many years ago.... Since they accepted the moderation function, they've disqualified themselves from the drafting function. And I especially like Paul's point that those serving as the moderators be disqualified from serving in another postition for at least a year. -- William Allen Simpson Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
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 is just not worth discussing.
Speaking as someone with more than a passing familiarity with practical political process, Paul's comments are correct.
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 many years ago....
Since they accepted the moderation function, they've disqualified themselves from the drafting function.
And I especially like Paul's point that those serving as the moderators be disqualified from serving in another postition for at least a year.
I'm not sure what the purpose of that is, seems a bit arbitrary. As I see it, this is a process, some short term improvements have been made as an interim fix and response to vegas's community meeting but theres also more to come before its complete. Lets not get sidetracked with issues that arent there.. 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. Steve
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 after Betty said: "Third, we are creating a new email list, NANOG-futures, to discuss NANOG's evolution. We hope you'll participate - watch for a message later today or tomorrow about subscribing and a proposed time-line for moving us forward. " I thought I'd wait for the actual announcement. Since this hasn't come I assumed the list wasn't going yet. However I just checked. http://www.nanog.org/email.html and at the bottom it says: " NANOG-futures List Everyone is welcome to join this new list, established to discuss concerns raised at our special community meeting at the 2005 Las Vegas NANOG. Topics to be covered include NANOG's organizational structure, policies and procedures, and meeting agendas. To subscribe to NANOG-futures, send mail to majordomo@merit.edu with 'subscribe nanog-futures' (without the quotes) as the text of the message. To unsubscribe, send e-mail to the same address, and use only the word 'unsubscribe' as the text of the message. " Which I guess means we should all go and join the list... *sigh* , Lets hope after this rocky start things settle down. -- Simon J. Lyall. | Very Busy | Mail: simon@darkmere.gen.nz "To stay awake all night adds a day to your life" - Stilgar | eMT.
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... http://www.nanog.org/email.html No archive yet that I can see... --Michael Dillon
On Sat, 2005-02-19 at 01:25 +0000, 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 experience in setting up such an organization, is to avoid setting firm hard-line restrictions against any participation. I would recommend a slight modification to Paul's second point. A current moderator, judged to be in good standing by his peers, may run unopposed for a vacant, or to-be vacant, position. If someone doesn't want that person to be in an elected position all they have to do is step up to the plate. It is only in NANOG's interest to have interested people serve. -Jim P.
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 look forward to working with all of you to maintain the high standards we have come to expect from NANOG.
Second, the NANOG Program Committee has elected a new chair - thank you Steve Feldman! Steve will now handle speaker communications that deal with content, and will make any last-minute decisions about what to include on the agenda.
Third, we are creating a new email list, NANOG-futures, to discuss NANOG's evolution. We hope you'll participate - watch for a message later today or tomorrow about subscribing and a proposed time-line for moving us forward.
In the past, I've suggested (and volunteered for) NANOG to have a more extensive publication program, not simply an archive of presentation. There are some extremely valuable pages on the NANOG website, but I believe there is value to having a slightly more formalized publication process. RIPE and RIPE-NCC have done so for some time, with very useful outputs. It has been suggested that the IETF RFC process can serve, but there are problems with that. IETF's process is optimized more for developers than operators. It also can be slow, not from controversy but simply from administrative process and workload. I'm sure I'm not the only author to see a year or two elapse between working group consensus and final RFC publication. Betty, would you see this discussed on NANOG-futures? Is it worthwhile to reopen exploratory decisions on the main list?
participants (12)
-
Betty Burke -
Gadi Evron -
Howard C. Berkowitz -
Jim Popovitch -
Joe Provo -
Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com -
Paul Vixie -
Scott Weeks -
Simon Lyall -
Stephen J. Wilcox -
Steve Gibbard -
William Allen Simpson