Re: 2017 NANOG Elections General Information
Hi NANOG Community, Nominations are rapidly coming to a close - September 8th is the last day to submit nominees. Unfortunately, to follow up on my paragraph about diversity: So far, every single candidate that has completed the nomination process is a white male. Having sat in on sessions such as Women in Technology lunch, I know that this community is passionate about diversity. If you, or a friend, would like to discuss what it takes to be on the NANOG board, I or my colleagues would love to speak about it. If you're ready to enter the nomination process, you can see details below. Best Regards, -Dave Temkin, for the NANOG Board of Directors On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Dave Temkin <dave@temk.in> wrote:
Hello NANOGers!
We are once again approaching the annual NANOG election <http://nanog.org/elections/2017/general> and appointment time. Board candidate nominations open August 7th and the complete Election timeline can be found here <http://nanog.org/elections/2017/general>. We encourage those in the community who are not currently NANOG members to consider becoming members of NANOG and to consider standing for a position in our leadership. Through membership and voting, you will be an active participant in directing all NANOG activities.
Only NANOG members are eligible to nominate, be a candidate, vote, and serve in the NANOG Board of Directors and Committees. Click here <https://www.nanog.org/membership> to become a member today! **If you are not a member and wish to vote in this election, your membership must be received by 9:00 a.m. Pacific Time on Wednesday, October 4, 2017.**
Why?
NANOG is at its strongest and best when there is an engaged group of members. If you care about NANOG and would like to take a turn at volunteering your time, please consider becoming part of the team by taking part in the nomination and election process. If you know someone else that you believe would be interested in serving on the Board of Directors, nominate them by completing the Online Process <https://www.bigpulse.com/138028/signin> beginning August 7, 2017. Any questions should be submitted to elections@nanog.org.
As I spoke about during my opening at NANOG 70, diversity is key to the viability of the NANOG community. Personally, it concerns me that our only non-white, non-male elected member of the Board is leaving the board this year, having served the maximum allowable number of terms. While everyone is welcome, it is important that we represent our community well at all levels and so if you or someone you know could help improve that representation, please consider the nomination process.
As NANOG continues to evolve, our Board of Directors and Committees will continue to play an increasingly important role in our success. By joining now, you can be an integral part of the process.
For more information about the role of a Board of Director or any Committee Member, or to find out more about what's involved in serving, please consult the current NANOG Bylaws <https://nanog.org/sites/default/files/sites/default/files/NANOG-Bylaws-October2016.pdf> or follow the links to the Board and Committee pages from the General 2017 NANOG Elections Page <https://www.nanog.org/elections/2017/general>.
Best regards,
Dave Temkin On behalf of the NANOG Board of Directors
On Tue, 5 Sep 2017, Dave Temkin wrote:
Hi NANOG Community,
Nominations are rapidly coming to a close - September 8th is the last day to submit nominees.
Unfortunately, to follow up on my paragraph about diversity: So far, every single candidate that has completed the nomination process is a white male.
What you're describing is a very coarse form of diversity based on physical characteristics. A white man who has lived his entire life as a peasant in Ukraine may well have a very different outlook and life experience to a white man who grew up in Australia. These two white men could bring quite diverse viewpoints to any situation even though they share some superficial characteristics. I have always supported the most suitable candidates for any role, irrespective of their physical characteristics. I will always continue to do so. Rob
While I respect your opinion, it's impossible to enumerate every single possible combination that would make a person diverse and keep this a reasonable length email. Diversity of race and gender (amongst other things) is a shortcut to saying diversity of background. What we have today are a bunch of North American males that came up in similar backgrounds. What I can say, and what does concern me, is that the current board shares a lot of very similar characteristics that are easy to group together due to our gender and ethnicity. This leads to groupthink and other less desirable behaviors by a team tasked with setting a strategic direction that benefits millions of very different people all over the internet. And with that, I will state that we have many qualified candidates on the slate, both who fit the current grouping and those who will bring some amount of diversity to the group. You are free to vote whomever you choose. Best Regards, -Dave On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 9:18 PM, Robert Brockway <robert@timetraveller.org> wrote:
On Tue, 5 Sep 2017, Dave Temkin wrote:
Hi NANOG Community,
Nominations are rapidly coming to a close - September 8th is the last day to submit nominees.
Unfortunately, to follow up on my paragraph about diversity: So far, every single candidate that has completed the nomination process is a white male.
What you're describing is a very coarse form of diversity based on physical characteristics. A white man who has lived his entire life as a peasant in Ukraine may well have a very different outlook and life experience to a white man who grew up in Australia. These two white men could bring quite diverse viewpoints to any situation even though they share some superficial characteristics.
I have always supported the most suitable candidates for any role, irrespective of their physical characteristics. I will always continue to do so.
Rob
my impression is that, in recent years, one has to be a white frat boy who is proud of being drunk. randy, who stopped attending
I think you would have to work very hard to find a more sober group of individuals than the current and past members of the NANOG Board. I don't disagree with Randy that there is too much drinking and too much white frat boy nonsense in our industry. That being said, if you look at the past members of the NANOG board - folks like Sylvie, Dave, Ryan, Greg, Steve F, Mike Smith, Steve Gibbard, Duane, Jezzibell - you'll find people who *don't* buy into the party culture that sometimes surrounds NANOG. This leads to a good point, and I think the point Randy was trying to make - the Board elections should not be a popularity contest, either in terms of who people like or who the best engineers are. It should *not* be focused on who has the most fun at the socials or the room parties. Carefully look at the qualifications of who is running. Do they have prior experience on NANOG committees? Are they long time volunteers who understand the community and its mission? Are they diverse and help us look more like the network engineering community at large? There are a great mix of folks running. Some clearly do not meet these standards. Some do. Please be discerning in your vote. Dan On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:28 AM Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
my impression is that, in recent years, one has to be a white frat boy who is proud of being drunk.
randy, who stopped attending
This leads to a good point, and I think the point Randy was trying to make - the Board elections should not be a popularity contest, either in terms of who people like or who the best engineers are. It should *not* be focused on who has the most fun at the socials or the room parties.
+1 ... and .. ... if I may expand candidly on this, I'd like to see a little less of an -- to use the term loosely -- "Old Boys Network" mentality at meetings. I point specifically to the opening talk at Bellevue where there were wackily photoshop'd pictures of NANOG star heavy-hitters. I consider myself a relative newcomer to the community, and I find the meetings invaluable, but I've been to enough of them to know who the folks pictured were. Had I been a first-time attendee, I would've felt like a high-school freshman being told who all the "cool seniors" were. Frankly, it was awkward and off-putting. Just my $0.02 worth.
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:28 AM Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
my impression is that, in recent years, one has to be a white frat boy who is proud of being drunk.
randy, who stopped attending
On Sep 7, 2017, at 11:26 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote: my impression is that, in recent years, one has to be a white frat boy who is proud of being drunk.
One of those rare occasions when Randy and I are in complete agreement.
On Sep 10, 2017, at 1:59 PM, Bryan Holloway <bryan@shout.net> wrote: I point specifically to the opening talk at Bellevue where there were wackily photoshop'd pictures of NANOG star heavy-hitters. Had I been a first-time attendee, I would've felt like a high-school freshman being told who all the "cool seniors" were. Frankly, it was awkward and off-putting.
Probably a safe bet that it was mostly aspirant juniors. To my occasional observation, the cool seniors don't attend anymore. Unless Stephen Stuart or Sean Doran or John Hawkinson showed up. Which would surprise me very much. -Bill
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 12:32 AM, Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net> wrote:
On Sep 7, 2017, at 11:26 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote: my impression is that, in recent years, one has to be a white frat boy who is proud of being drunk.
One of those rare occasions when Randy and I are in complete agreement.
So how do we fix it? As usual, that part is missed. Easier to snipe, not so easy to act.
On Sep 10, 2017, at 1:59 PM, Bryan Holloway <bryan@shout.net> wrote: I point specifically to the opening talk at Bellevue where there were wackily photoshop'd pictures of NANOG star heavy-hitters. Had I been a first-time attendee, I would've felt like a high-school freshman being told who all the "cool seniors" were. Frankly, it was awkward and off-putting.
Probably a safe bet that it was mostly aspirant juniors. To my occasional observation, the cool seniors don't attend anymore. Unless Stephen Stuart or Sean Doran or John Hawkinson showed up. Which would surprise me very much.
I didn't like that opening, at all. I disliked it slightly less than when they had a video making fun of us. I personally and in my Board position thank NTT for sponsoring our events, and we give them, like all other hosts, a few minutes during the opening to do something that they think attendees will find educational and/or entertaining. I, like you, sincerely hate the inside jokes being tossed around from the stage and gave them my personal feedback as such. They are far from the only sponsor to have done so, and if you really feel that it's causing a hostile environment for newcomers, I suggest you speak up about it on the members list so that we can figure out the best way to fix it. With that said, newcomers may feel this moment of awkwardness during the opening, but we go above and beyond afterwards to make them feel welcome (newcomers lunch with a personal shepherd, etc.) that I hope at least has made up for some of it in the past. I won't sit around and mourn the greybeards that choose or don't choose to show up. We can't go chasing after people who have had vast changes in their career responsibilities and life circumstances and assume that we can always produce the conference that fits their aspirations. At some point we need to hand the torch over to the next guard, and that's the root of my diversity screed. If we try to be everything to everyone, we end up as nothing to no one (or worse, ITW). The board has been nothing but receptive towards ideas on how to make these meetings more valuable to long time and first time attendees alike. -Dave Temkin NANOG Board Chair
So how do we fix it?
since bussing is out, you're left with affirmative action :) ask the ripe women, a strong group, how they got women to be willing to server on the board ask the ietf women, a strong group, how they got women to be willing to server in the iesg apnic has a star woman on the execcom, ask her this is most strongly an american disease. nanog has encouraged and supported a frat boy ego parade and beauty contest. try the ietf nomcomm approach, but with zero white boys on the nomcomm. btw, one trick is getting more then one diverse player, so the one is not a martian and has peer support s/women/diversity/ q: how many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb a: one, but the light bulb has to want to change
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 10:03 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
So how do we fix it?
this is most strongly an american disease. nanog has encouraged and supported a frat boy ego parade and beauty contest. try the ietf nomcomm approach, but with zero white boys on the nomcomm.
Love the idea, and I agree that the elections are a popularity contest in many cases and not a measure of who is most capable for the job. Luckily, we've generally ended up with people who are both - but that's not always best for the organization long term, and we generally end up with "more of the same". In my tenure in NANOG we've floated the idea of a nomcom a few times, but it's generally been summarily shot down. Are you suggesting that we try and float the idea again? I'm not 100% clear, but I believe it would require a bylaw change.
btw, one trick is getting more then one diverse player, so the one is not a martian and has peer support
s/women/diversity/
Completely agree; gender is only one of various keys that are important here. Race, age, national origin, orientation, etc. - all of these things matter in avoiding groupthink and helping to ensure that the board is representative of the membership that we wish to attract.
q: how many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb a: one, but the light bulb has to want to change
Alternate A: Depends, are we having the conference in a union hotel?
I honestly wondered whether to wade in here, as I'm another person that seems to have drifted away from the NANOG community. But why have I drifted? Partly because I've only got so much T&E budget to go at, and sometimes I need to be somewhere else that isn't a NANOG meeting. NANOG has stopped being a "must attend" event for me, and become a "nice to do", probably once a year to catch up with some people, and only if I'm not too busy already. I've also not renewed my NANOG membership since it lapsed last year despite having previously been a member since NANOG memberships were first offered in 2011. One of the things that lost my continued membership was a recent election where a number of candidates ran as a slate. I felt it to be cringeworthy and unwarranted. When the opportunity to renew came, I chose not to give NANOG any more money because members of the incumbent Board had taken an action that had disappointed me. I strongly believe the NANOG community is best served by candidates elected based on their individual merit and their stated platform. Right now, the Board is all too easily perceived as an unassailable hegemony of powerful, successful individuals, who hold senior roles in their (successful) parent orgs, and that's regardless of the positive and community-spirited intentions they may have had when standing for election. It feels as though we need to wait for people to term-out and hope one of their powerful buddies isn't standing to continue the dynasty. Is that what the Board really wants? It seems not, but that's how it's ended up looking. There's also something of an "escalator" assumption about passage through committees and eventually becoming a Board member. While I don't doubt the experience of the other committees is useful, this "escalator" isn't necessarily a healthy path to Board membership. Back to the meetings themselves, I feel NANOG has become less of a welcoming meeting of technical peers and feels more like a trade fair, dominated by cliques, cabals, suites & private side rooms. The trade fair mentality likely attracted the undesirable trade fair antics that have been spoken of on this thread, perhaps unsurprisingly. Meanwhile, the governance seems to have become rather politicised and less representative of the community. That said, I'm pleased to see there's some recognition of the shortcomings and a desire to change the status quo. How that's done? Well that's a whole different question, but I think Dan made a few good points earlier in the thread. Maybe part of the solution is having some proportion of Board seats appointed by some sort of nominating process, while retaining the elections for others, to try and achieve a more balanced Board. Thanks, Mike
On Sep 10, 2017, at 1:59 PM, Bryan Holloway <bryan@shout.net> wrote: I point specifically to the opening talk at Bellevue where there were wackily photoshop'd pictures of NANOG star heavy-hitters. Had I been a first-time attendee, I would've felt like a high-school freshman being told who all the "cool seniors" were. Frankly, it was awkward and off-putting.
On Sep 11, 2017, at 12:32 AM, Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net> wrote: Probably a safe bet that it was mostly aspirant juniors.
Patrick has pointed out to me that my offhand dismissiveness painted with an overly broad brush and encompassed people whom I undoubtedly do not think so little of. So, my sincere apologies for my tone and speaking-out-of-turn about a slide deck that I hadn’t actually seen. I do very much miss the “cool seniors” who worked so hard to make this what it was, twenty-five and thirty years ago; I owe them a lot. I’m sure the people who are working hard to make the organization what it is today are serving a similar function for people who are entering the industry today. Nostalgia was causing me to conflate two things which are unrelated The frat-boy thing is a problem, not only in NANOG, but in ARIN and RIPE. I’d very much like to see it fixed, so that everyone can enjoy collegial support, rather than just a subset of participants. -Bill
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net> wrote:
On Sep 10, 2017, at 1:59 PM, Bryan Holloway <bryan@shout.net> wrote: I point specifically to the opening talk at Bellevue where there were wackily photoshop'd pictures of NANOG star heavy-hitters. Had I been a first-time attendee, I would've felt like a high-school freshman being told who all the "cool seniors" were. Frankly, it was awkward and off-putting.
On Sep 11, 2017, at 12:32 AM, Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net> wrote: Probably a safe bet that it was mostly aspirant juniors.
Patrick has pointed out to me that my offhand dismissiveness painted with an overly broad brush and encompassed people whom I undoubtedly do not think so little of. So, my sincere apologies for my tone and speaking-out-of-turn about a slide deck that I hadn’t actually seen. I do very much miss the “cool seniors” who worked so hard to make this what it was, twenty-five and thirty years ago; I owe them a lot. I’m sure the people who are working hard to make the organization what it is today are serving a similar function for people who are entering the industry today.
Thanks Bill. That's definitely an accurate representation from my personal vantage point. Personally in my role within the organization I've stressed the importance of bringing the next Paul Vixie or Sean Doran into the industry and fostering their growth and influence. To me that's where NANOG can add the most value for the next 70 meetings.
Nostalgia was causing me to conflate two things which are unrelated The frat-boy thing is a problem, not only in NANOG, but in ARIN and RIPE. I’d very much like to see it fixed, so that everyone can enjoy collegial support, rather than just a subset of participants.
Totally agree here. I'd love to come up with more ideas on how to fix this real issue; my personal diversity & inclusion bent is squarely aimed at that problem. -Dave
participants (7)
-
Bill Woodcock -
Bryan Holloway -
Daniel Golding -
Dave Temkin -
Mike Hughes -
Randy Bush -
Robert Brockway