NANOG Changes

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
1

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.

2

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.

3

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

4

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.

5

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.

6

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