On 9-Oct-2007, at 0512, Paul Ferguson wrote:
- -- "vijay gill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Really, reading this thread has left me stupider. I guess instead of
focusing on things like the lightweight agenda, abysmal content and
actual value to be had from NANOG,
I'm glad someone finally said it.
Me too :-)
The current structure was designed (I guess; I wasn't particularly
involved in designing it; others here can confirm/deny) to give the
community control over NANOG in a way that it didn't have before. To
some degree it feels to me as though the doors to the citadel were
thrown wide open at the end of the revolution, only to find that
almost nobody is interested in looking inside.
Is the reduced usefulness of NANOG that Vijay observes a result of
the revolution, or a result of SRH no longer being involved, or a
sign of the times, or something else?
This is partially the reason why I don't bother with NANOG any more.
It is "governed" and bullied by a group of people who think way
too much of themselves, and in fact, consume way too much bandwidth
discussing themselves.
I'm not at all convinced you can make such a sweeping generality
stick on the basis of a public tif between Randy and Marty. Really,
Randy having a public tif with someone is more or less a constant,
regardless of what else is going on :-)
I can't speak for the programme or mailing list crews, since I'm not
on those committees. But the steering committee would certainly have
a much easier time contemplating NANOG's navel if we heard more
complaints like this, from people who were prepared to drill down a
little further.
Some of us have networks to tend, and other more pressing issues.
I certainly find myself with a lot less time to spend on NANOG these
days, what with kids and the day job, than I did seven years ago.
Back then you couldn't register for a NANOG meeting three weeks
before it happened because it was full; today we're limping by from
meeting to meeting, struggling to get the attendance that will keep
us in the black.
Is the problem that those of us on the SC/PC/MLC/whatever are stupid
or lazy? What does that say about the people that elected us?
Is the industry as a whole shrink-wrapped and vendor-driven to the
extent that there's really no need for a NANOG any more?
Has the innovation moved up the stack to people publishing APIs to
web-based applications, leaving the network as just so much tedious
plumbing?
Do the enthusiastic NANOGers of 2000 just not have time/energy for
this any more, and do their counterparts in 2007 find themselves in a
business where the manuals are already written, and they just need to
follow along?
What needs to change for you to bother with NANOG again? Or are you
already well beyond caring?
Joe
