NANOG Changes

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
1

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

2

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

3

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.

4

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

5

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.

6

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?

7

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

8

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.

9

: want to see at this headache of a position, or we do it openly on the

Yes, publically. Please.

scott

10

Scott Weeks 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.

11

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.

12

: 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