Re: [Nanog-futures] NANOG Transition - How we got here
Sean Figgins writes: > It is like someone claiming to have a private meeting at a public > park, and them getting mad that someone's dog came over and sniffed > them. Flawed analogy. It's more like minding your own business in a park that is clearly posted "NO PETS EXCEPT ON LEASH", having a critter come bounding up and chomp down on your leg, and then (in the example at hand) discovering that the owner of said mangy mutt is the retired chief dogcatcher who figures the rules didn't apply to him and intentionally let his dog off the leash. I continue to be disappointed that an apology and a check haven't been forthcoming. Bill makes an argument that the rules ought to be spelled out, yet the commitment to "do the right thing" clearly isn't there - do we have any basis for expecting things to actually be better after we clearly articulate what ought to be basic courtesy and common sense? -r ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] NANOG Transition - How we got here
On 6/30/10 4:00 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > If someone entered the meeting space without paying, I agree. If all of > this transpired in the hallways, I suggest that this topic is neither > appropriate for this or any other NANOG mailing list. Once again, I find myself in agreement with Martin. If $600 is the cost of introducing yourself to someone at a meeting that you neither attend nor participate in, but merely crossed some invisible boundary... It is like someone claiming to have a private meeting at a public park, and them getting mad that someone's dog came over and sniffed them. I do agree with some of what Bill said in the start of the thread. This has been a concern of mine about this transition. Can we really trust someone that makes a decision behind closed doors, and then acts upon it without really giving the community a chance to understand or comment on it? For our sake, I hope we can, and it all works out. -Sean ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] NANOG Transition - How we got here
[ snip ] > The honorable thing for [snarf] to do would be to admit a mistake and > donate the cost of membership to Merit > [ clip ] If someone entered the meeting space without paying, I agree. If all of this transpired in the hallways, I suggest that this topic is neither appropriate for this or any other NANOG mailing list. Both parties have their respective contact info and both live in the Bay Area. Shouldn't be hard to get together and battle it out. Best, Marty ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] NANOG Transition - How we got here
William Norton writes: > This overreaction seems strikingly similar to the Avi NANOG issue of > a few years back - one of the things that led up to the NANOG > revolution in the first place. Avi was chewed out by the Merit NANOG > Chair for sitting in the NANOG hotel public area and chatting with > some friends - not attending sessions, not eating the food, not > really crashing IMHO. Just enjoying visiting with friends for a > bit. This guy came to see if he could grab a quick lunch with Ken - > he didn't know what Ken looked like. > > We seem to be becoming what we rebelled against, like Animal Farm. I've been trying to stay out of this fray since it is entirely too easy to handwave and claim that I am completely biased (as a member of the SC, a board member of NewNOG, and one of the agitators for change in 2004). Nevertheless, as someone who was there for the Avi incident, I feel compelled to reply. At the May 2004 meeting in San Francisco, Avi Freedman was present in the hotel but not at the conference. We agree on all the salient points: he did not pay for a registration. He stayed outside of the conference area. He did not eat break munchies, he did not use the meeting wireless (he was on whatever-was-bleeding-adge-at-the-time telco wireless, from a tiny laptop). The difference here, and it is a very important one, is that Avi was there to meet with people _who came to him_, who had _asked him to be there for a meeting as a convenience to them_. SRH took exception to him being in the same hotel as the meeting, in public space, without paying. Compare and contrast this with the current situation, which I think both Bill and David agree involved attempting to get an audience with people who were "cornered" and couldn't get away because they were meeting sponsors. I think drawing a parallel here is at best disingenuous. The honorable thing for Bill to do would be to admit a mistake and donate the cost of membership to Merit (not NewNOG; as much as I would like to see more money in NewNOG's coffers, it was Merit that was denied the revenue not the new organization). Insisting that there was no error in judgement and that attempting to benefit from the conference by shooting fish in a barrel without paying the customary registration fee was A-OK does not reflect the level of class that I've seen from Bill over the years, and I find it disheartening. Might I also suggest an amendment to Godwin's Law that encompasses Orwell? cheers, -r ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] NANOG Transition - How we got here
Bill, That's precisely the problem, that (per your own admission) you invited a salesman to NANOG, and suggested that he approach some of the Netflix folks with an unsolicited sales pitch, all without paying a dime. As a seasoned attendee, you should realize that the standard practice here is to *pay* to attend, or else follow up with the gents from Netflix by e-mail or phone outside of the conference. You'll note that the other salesmen attending NANOG 49 (from OSI Hardware, Tata, Time Warner Cable, and Tinet, to name a few) had no problem paying to play. The respectful thing to do would have been to call or e-mail. Of course, after your video taping of a past peering BOF, or your hosting of a marketing intelligence event in Philly passed off as an impromptu "BOF", you've made it abundantly clear this is a community you have no respect for, and that your interests are strictly commercial. Given all the money you're making off this community's goodwill, I'd think the forgotten $600 registration fee should be chump change to the DrPeering enterprise. I'll even go lightly and not hound you for the $5000 sponsorship opportunity in Philly this community afforded you. :) Drive Slow, Paul Wall On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 1:59 PM, William Norton wrote: > This is all very interesting, inasmuch as you invited salespeople to > crash NANOG49 (unpaid) for the purposes of pitching the sponsor. > > Wow - the story gets propagated and more exaggerated by the minute. Thank > you Mr. Temkin, (Marketing, NANOG). > Here is what actually happened. > I had lunch with the CEO of MediaMelon - he said he wanted to meet Ken > Florance (NetFlix), a friend who I have lunch with periodically. I > mentioned that he would be at NANOG. The gentleman works in San Francisco > and stopped by the hotel at lunchtime, unfortunately on Tuesday and I > hadn't seen Ken but I did see his subordinate (Dave Temkin) - I made the > suggestion that maybe he could maybe grab lunch with Dave instead. > Next thing I know, I was scolded by Mr Temkin to the SC, the NANOG Marketing > group, and apparently through the rumor mill as evidenced by your inaccurate > portrayal of what actually happened. Here is the scolding: >> I find it extremely inappropriate that you brought MediaMelon in >> specifically to "hunt" for myself and Ken Florance at this meeting. >> We are the meeting sponsor and we expect that vendors be respectful >> of the commitments that we have to the community. >> >> Further, if MediaMelon would like to "sell" their wares to NANOG >> attendees such as Netflix, they should purchase either a meeting >> pass, or, more appropriately, pay to sponsor like everyone else. >> How could it possibly be fair for you to "sneak" Kumar from >> MediaMelon in, but Network Hardware Resale, Citrix, and many others >> need to pay $5,000 and up to get a moment of my time? If Kumar >> wants to contact me outside of NANOG where I'm not cornered, he >> certainly has many ways to do so. It's clear that the meeting was >> engineered. >> >> I suggest that you discuss this with Kumar and encourage him to >> donate or sponsor NANOG or NewNOG. I could understand that he may >> be unfamiliar with how this community works, but frankly I expected >> better from you. >> >> -David Temkin >> (Marketing Working Group) > > I replied to clarify what appeared to be a simple misunderstanding. > From: William Norton [bill.nor...@gmail.com] > Received: 6/15/10 6:33 PM > To: David Temkin [dtem...@netflix.com] > CC: steer...@nanog.org [steering@nanog.org]; nanog-marketing > [nanog-market...@nanog.org] > Subject: Re: Inappropriate vendor meeting > > Please. Give me small break. > > I did not sneak this gentleman in. He wanted to meet ken Florance. Not > being here I suggested he talk to you. > > Geesh. > > Bill > Which resulted in continued attack cc'ing the SC/Marketing folks: > Bill, > > That's ridiculous, and I'll let the fact that you don't deny any of it speak > for itself. > > I wish I could give you more credit, but after the commercialized "federated > cdn" bof, taping the last peering bof, and now this, it shows that you have > no respect for NANOG. > > This overreaction seems strikingly similar to the Avi NANOG issue of a few > years back - one of the things that led up to the NANOG revolution in the > first place. Avi was chewed out by the Merit NANOG Chair for sitting in the > NANOG hotel public area and chatting with some friends - not attending > sessions, not eating the food, not really crashing IMHO. Just enjoying > visiting with friends for a bit. This guy came to see if he could grab a > quick lunch with Ken - he didn't know what Ken looked like. > We seem to be becoming what we rebelled against, like Animal Farm. > > While I think you owe us all an explanation on how you allowed that to > happen, the past doesn't matter, so would you be able to comment on > > My role as a NANOG attendee does not include policing the door. > > what you're doing to make
Re: [Nanog-futures] NANOG Transition - How we got here
On Jun 30, 2010, at 7:21 AM, Paul WALL wrote: > Bill, > > This is all very interesting, inasmuch as you invited salespeople to > crash NANOG49 (unpaid) for the purposes of pitching the sponsor. Wow - the story gets propagated and more exaggerated by the minute. Thank you Mr. Temkin, (Marketing, NANOG). Here is what actually happened. I had lunch with the CEO of MediaMelon - he said he wanted to meet Ken Florance (NetFlix), a friend who I have lunch with periodically. I mentioned that he would be at NANOG. The gentleman works in San Francisco and stopped by the hotel at lunchtime, unfortunately on Tuesday and I hadn't seen Ken but I did see his subordinate (Dave Temkin) - I made the suggestion that maybe he could maybe grab lunch with Dave instead. Next thing I know, I was scolded by Mr Temkin to the SC, the NANOG Marketing group, and apparently through the rumor mill as evidenced by your inaccurate portrayal of what actually happened. Here is the scolding: > I find it extremely inappropriate that you brought MediaMelon in > specifically to "hunt" for myself and Ken Florance at this meeting. > We are the meeting sponsor and we expect that vendors be respectful > of the commitments that we have to the community. > > Further, if MediaMelon would like to "sell" their wares to NANOG > attendees such as Netflix, they should purchase either a meeting > pass, or, more appropriately, pay to sponsor like everyone else. > How could it possibly be fair for you to "sneak" Kumar from > MediaMelon in, but Network Hardware Resale, Citrix, and many others > need to pay $5,000 and up to get a moment of my time? If Kumar > wants to contact me outside of NANOG where I'm not cornered, he > certainly has many ways to do so. It's clear that the meeting was > engineered. > > I suggest that you discuss this with Kumar and encourage him to > donate or sponsor NANOG or NewNOG. I could understand that he may > be unfamiliar with how this community works, but frankly I expected > better from you. > > -David Temkin > (Marketing Working Group) I replied to clarify what appeared to be a simple misunderstanding. From: William Norton [bill.nor...@gmail.com] Received: 6/15/10 6:33 PM To: David Temkin [dtem...@netflix.com] CC: steer...@nanog.org [steer...@nanog.org]; nanog-marketing [nanog-market...@nanog.org] Subject: Re: Inappropriate vendor meeting Please. Give me small break. I did not sneak this gentleman in. He wanted to meet ken Florance. Not being here I suggested he talk to you. Geesh. Bill Which resulted in continued attack cc'ing the SC/Marketing folks: Bill, That's ridiculous, and I'll let the fact that you don't deny any of it speak for itself. I wish I could give you more credit, but after the commercialized "federated cdn" bof, taping the last peering bof, and now this, it shows that you have no respect for NANOG. This overreaction seems strikingly similar to the Avi NANOG issue of a few years back - one of the things that led up to the NANOG revolution in the first place. Avi was chewed out by the Merit NANOG Chair for sitting in the NANOG hotel public area and chatting with some friends - not attending sessions, not eating the food, not really crashing IMHO. Just enjoying visiting with friends for a bit. This guy came to see if he could grab a quick lunch with Ken - he didn't know what Ken looked like. We seem to be becoming what we rebelled against, like Animal Farm. > > While I think you owe us all an explanation on how you allowed that to > happen, the past doesn't matter, so would you be able to comment on My role as a NANOG attendee does not include policing the door. > what you're doing to make things right? Which organization, Merit or > NewNog, should expect a $600 donation from DrPeering? To make things right I am making this silly event transparent. Bill > > Drive Slow, > Paul Wall > > On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 1:57 PM, William Norton wrote: >> Hi all - >> >> I spoke up at the community meeting and during the NANOG Transition BOF at >> NANOG, trying to get a better understanding of what was happening with >> NANOG. I asked a few questions, and admittedly got caught up in the moment >> during some of the discussions. A couple folks got the impression that I was >> AGAINST the transition. >> >> To be clear - - - I am NOT against the transition (of NANOG from a Merit >> activity to a new organization more tightly directed by elected members of >> the community). >> My issues are with how we got here. >> >> As I stated before, in the first Steering Committee I was pushing for the >> same thing (See slide 12 "Actual Results" of my NANOGHIstory slides from >> NANOG 37 back in 2007). The idea that the elected Steering Committee was >> merely an advisory role or meeting attendee advocate role just didn't seem >> rational - it provided the 'transparency' but lacked the 'accountability' >> aspect that we all required from t
Re: [Nanog-futures] NANOG Transition - How we got here
> In any case, instead, both sides have left the community with a > transition where > > 1) the broader community was not brought along for the ride with > identified problems and proposed solutions, it was a 'done deal' > (this would have taken time) > > 2) the plan for this new NANOG was not shared broadly with the > community (was not really developed fully), and yet > > 3) both sides agree the transition HAS TO HAPPEN now. > > This due to... > > a classic inter-group conflict that could have been better handled > with a mediator and informal discussions. > > I suspected the same when the initial announcement came out, that some > interpersonal conflict triggered a rush to action rather than a well > orchestrated transition. > > It seems that 2) above is being addressed to a large extent. But 1) > above is the real "How we got here" question. I have heard allusions to > disagreements with regard to meeting schedules and locations, but I have > no idea what those disagreements were. Did Merit want more meetings and > the SC fewer, or the other way around? What happened at that closed > meeting with no minutes with Merit uninvited? Who at the SC felt that > who at Merit had polluted their Cheerios, and why? > Again, why is this so important? Even as Bill said, the concept of NANOG going on its own has been around since the beginning of the organization, and has been discussed formally for at least 5 years. You are concerned with the ongoing relationship between NANOG and Merit and I would suggest that the SC is acutely aware of this relationship and wants it to be amicable as well. Why get into a he-said, she-said between the two organizations? Nothing good can come of that approach and I think that both the SC and Merit have done an excellent job of keeping this on a business level. "Polluting the Cheerios" discussion can become personal very quickly and this is not a personal decision. > Actions are usually taken to solve specific problems. According to > previous list postings, the SC took this action at a closed meeting, > without minutes, without Merit present, and came up with a unanimous > decision that immediate action was needed, which Merit thought was a bad > idea. > Much of this was addressed in the community meeting. There have been scheduling conflicts in the past where NANOG has been scheduled on top of other network-oriented meetings, causing many community members to have to decide what meeting to attend. Also, the scheduling of meetings is something that happens far in advance. In order to make sure we got NANOG 52 contracted, we had to get the organization formalized in short order to sign those contracts. > The community has not been informed as to the specific problem that > needed this immediate solution. Those who chose to take this action at > a meeting without minutes, with no community involvement, have > appointed > themselves as the BoD of the new organization. This is worrisome to me. > Again, the BoD is following the SC-elections exactly. As an example, Joe Provo will term out at the end of this year, and he will also term out from the BoD of NewNOG. The SC appointed themselves because we had to have a wireframe organization in place to begin the 501(c)(3) application as well as to sign contracts for upcoming meetings. There is no cabal. There are working groups being established with community volunteers that will determine what NewNOG will look like. A call for volunteers was issued at NANOG 49 and many have responded. If you have strong opinions about governance I suggest you become involved. > > If I had seen a large group of > > opposition to the concept at NANOG 49 I would certainly have rethought > > my position, but since there wasn't such a group. We were lucky that we > > can have an amicable parting of the ways, so it appears the timing was > > right. > > I don't think it's all that amicable, based on the initial posting to > this list and Merit's response. We in the cheap seats may never know. > It was really too late by NANOG 49 to unring the bell. By that time > "whether" wasn't really a viable option. No large opposition because > people didn't know the "How we got here", and no real way to stop it. > By that time it was a done deal. > There are a few, vocal opponents, but I don't see they are opposed to NewNOG. Rather, they are opposed to the procedural decision of the SC to act on behalf of the community in creating NewNOG. I suggest they also volunteer to help shape the new organization. > > I can't disagree more strongly with your statement that we've lost an > > opportunity. All the SC did was to create a wireframe organization that > > directly mirrors the present structure, sans Merit, of course. The > > community now has the opportunity to shape that organization through > > volunteering and direct involvement in the new organization. Doing the > > nuts and bolts work of creating
Re: [Nanog-futures] NANOG Transition - How we got here
On 6/29/10 8:45 AM, Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote: > I am not sure I understand why a comprehensive "why we got here" > statement is necessary beyond what the Steering Committee laid out in > the community meeting. If change is good then what would be gained from > dissecting the reasoning behind it? Because those who initiated it have appointed themselves as the leadership of the new organization. Quoting Bill Norton from the initial article in this thread: In any case, instead, both sides have left the community with a transition where 1) the broader community was not brought along for the ride with identified problems and proposed solutions, it was a 'done deal' (this would have taken time) 2) the plan for this new NANOG was not shared broadly with the community (was not really developed fully), and yet 3) both sides agree the transition HAS TO HAPPEN now. This due to... a classic inter-group conflict that could have been better handled with a mediator and informal discussions. I suspected the same when the initial announcement came out, that some interpersonal conflict triggered a rush to action rather than a well orchestrated transition. It seems that 2) above is being addressed to a large extent. But 1) above is the real "How we got here" question. I have heard allusions to disagreements with regard to meeting schedules and locations, but I have no idea what those disagreements were. Did Merit want more meetings and the SC fewer, or the other way around? What happened at that closed meeting with no minutes with Merit uninvited? Who at the SC felt that who at Merit had polluted their Cheerios, and why? Actions are usually taken to solve specific problems. According to previous list postings, the SC took this action at a closed meeting, without minutes, without Merit present, and came up with a unanimous decision that immediate action was needed, which Merit thought was a bad idea. The community has not been informed as to the specific problem that needed this immediate solution. Those who chose to take this action at a meeting without minutes, with no community involvement, have appointed themselves as the BoD of the new organization. This is worrisome to me. > If I had seen a large group of > opposition to the concept at NANOG 49 I would certainly have rethought > my position, but since there wasn't such a group. We were lucky that we > can have an amicable parting of the ways, so it appears the timing was > right. I don't think it's all that amicable, based on the initial posting to this list and Merit's response. We in the cheap seats may never know. It was really too late by NANOG 49 to unring the bell. By that time "whether" wasn't really a viable option. No large opposition because people didn't know the "How we got here", and no real way to stop it. By that time it was a done deal. > I can't disagree more strongly with your statement that we've lost an > opportunity. All the SC did was to create a wireframe organization that > directly mirrors the present structure, sans Merit, of course. The > community now has the opportunity to shape that organization through > volunteering and direct involvement in the new organization. Doing the > nuts and bolts work of creating a new organization is not done through > committee, unless you want to spend endless hours arguing over the color > of the bike shed. So now we have an organization with a BoD that is > going to be subject to the same voting as the SC for NANOG proper. > Other than that, we have committees, populated with volunteers from the > community, that will shape the new organization going forward. > > You can lament or you can contribute. I prefer the latter. Unfortunately, at this point we don't have any other choices. Suggesting a mediator and informal discussions to resolve whatever (unknown to most of us) inter-group conflict initiated this is probably a little late. We will probably survive this. We will need to contribute. But before contributing, I for one need to trust the leadership. Trust as in having faith that they know what they are doing and have both a viable business plan and the skills to implement it. That is 2) above. We seem to be getting there. Also trust as in believing that they are honest people and are open in their dealings both with the community and with third parties. That is 1) above and "How we got here" relates directly with that. Making critical decisions at undocumented closed-door meetings where concerned parties are not invited doesn't do much to instill trust. -- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - j...@impulse.net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] NANOG Transition - How we got here
Bill, This is all very interesting, inasmuch as you invited salespeople to crash NANOG49 (unpaid) for the purposes of pitching the sponsor. While I think you owe us all an explanation on how you allowed that to happen, the past doesn't matter, so would you be able to comment on what you're doing to make things right? Which organization, Merit or NewNog, should expect a $600 donation from DrPeering? Drive Slow, Paul Wall On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 1:57 PM, William Norton wrote: > Hi all - > > I spoke up at the community meeting and during the NANOG Transition BOF at > NANOG, trying to get a better understanding of what was happening with NANOG. > I asked a few questions, and admittedly got caught up in the moment during > some of the discussions. A couple folks got the impression that I was AGAINST > the transition. > > To be clear - - - I am NOT against the transition (of NANOG from a Merit > activity to a new organization more tightly directed by elected members of > the community). > My issues are with how we got here. > > As I stated before, in the first Steering Committee I was pushing for the > same thing (See slide 12 "Actual Results" of my NANOGHIstory slides from > NANOG 37 back in 2007). The idea that the elected Steering Committee was > merely an advisory role or meeting attendee advocate role just didn't seem > rational - it provided the 'transparency' but lacked the 'accountability' > aspect that we all required from the post-NANOG revolution phase. As several > folks mentioned, there are indeed different interests at play between Merit > and the NANOG community, as there in any partnership. My feeling was (and is) > that this advisory form of Steering Committee-Merit relationship is not as > effective as it needs to be. So the end state of some form of self-governed > NANOG can be better. > > At this NANOG I had conversations with the NANOG Steering Committee members > and the Merit folks about what led to this immediate transition. Based on > what I learned, we have here is a classic inter-group conflict that could > have been better handled with a mediator and informal discussions. The goals > should have been ensuring buy in to cooperative transition, defining a plan > and timeline for an orderly and coordinated community-driven transition plan. > As is typical, the rationale from both sides included exaggerated perceptions > about motivations and many assumptions about how the other side would react > to various actions. > > In any case, instead, both sides have left the community with a transition > where > > 1) the broader community was not brought along for the ride with identified > problems and proposed solutions, it was a 'done deal' (this would have taken > time) > 2) the plan for this new NANOG was not shared broadly with the community (was > not really developed fully), and yet > 3) both sides agree the transition HAS TO HAPPEN now. > > So, as a community member, my opinion is that we lost an opportunity to do > something really cool here: we could have taken the time to develop a newer > and better NANOG organization while demonstrating the principles that led to > the first revolution: transparency, accountability, as a newer, better NANOG, > all done in a community-driven fashion. This would have taken time and some > work, but it would have been pretty cool. > > But the past doesn't matter now, so Where are we now? > > Fundamentally, we all agree that > the transition will happen, > it will happen in a couple NANOGs, > we all want it to be a success, > we will try some new untested things. > > Just wanted to share where I am coming from, and I agree that the discussion > should now be about what we should do. I look forward to that. > > Bill > > Sidenote - I would share in some of the blame in that we in the Steering > Committees to date did not candidly describe some of these frictions in our > meeting minutes; instead we all glossed over differences, and patted > ourselves on the back for the progress and success of the meetings. It would > have been helpful feedback back to the community how this SC-PC-MLC-NANOG > experiment actually worked and where it didn't. > > As a result of lack of candor, we have nothing to point to, nothing for the > successor SC to review that highlighted relationship challenges, what was > tried to overcome those challenges, etc... in short, there is an absence of > institutional memory for the future SCs and the community to highlight the > problems and why the transition is the best solution to the problems > identified. > > > > ___ > Nanog-futures mailing list > Nanog-futures@nanog.org > https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures > ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] NANOG Transition - How we got here
> -Original Message- > From: William Norton [mailto:bill.nor...@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 10:57 AM > To: nanog-futures Futures > Subject: [Nanog-futures] NANOG Transition - How we got here > > Hi all - > > I spoke up at the community meeting and during the NANOG Transition BOF > at NANOG, trying to get a better understanding of what was happening with > NANOG. I asked a few questions, and admittedly got caught up in the > moment during some of the discussions. A couple folks got the impression > that I was AGAINST the transition. > > To be clear - - - I am NOT against the transition (of NANOG from a Merit > activity to a new organization more tightly directed by elected members of > the community). > My issues are with how we got here. > > As I stated before, in the first Steering Committee I was pushing for the same > thing (See slide 12 "Actual Results" of my NANOGHIstory slides from NANOG > 37 back in 2007). The idea that the elected Steering Committee was merely > an advisory role or meeting attendee advocate role just didn't seem rational - > it provided the 'transparency' but lacked the 'accountability' aspect that we > all required from the post-NANOG revolution phase. As several folks > mentioned, there are indeed different interests at play between Merit and > the NANOG community, as there in any partnership. My feeling was (and is) > that this advisory form of Steering Committee-Merit relationship is not as > effective as it needs to be. So the end state of some form of self-governed > NANOG can be better. > > At this NANOG I had conversations with the NANOG Steering Committee > members and the Merit folks about what led to this immediate transition. > Based on what I learned, we have here is a classic inter-group conflict that > could have been better handled with a mediator and informal discussions. > The goals should have been ensuring buy in to cooperative transition, > defining a plan and timeline for an orderly and coordinated community- > driven transition plan. As is typical, the rationale from both sides included > exaggerated perceptions about motivations and many assumptions about > how the other side would react to various actions. > > In any case, instead, both sides have left the community with a transition > where > > 1) the broader community was not brought along for the ride with identified > problems and proposed solutions, it was a 'done deal' (this would have taken > time) > 2) the plan for this new NANOG was not shared broadly with the community > (was not really developed fully), and yet > 3) both sides agree the transition HAS TO HAPPEN now. > > So, as a community member, my opinion is that we lost an opportunity to do > something really cool here: we could have taken the time to develop a > newer and better NANOG organization while demonstrating the principles > that led to the first revolution: transparency, accountability, as a newer, > better NANOG, all done in a community-driven fashion. This would have > taken time and some work, but it would have been pretty cool. > > But the past doesn't matter now, so Where are we now? > > Fundamentally, we all agree that > the transition will happen, > it will happen in a couple NANOGs, > we all want it to be a success, > we will try some new untested things. > > Just wanted to share where I am coming from, and I agree that the > discussion should now be about what we should do. I look forward to that. > > Bill > I am not sure I understand why a comprehensive "why we got here" statement is necessary beyond what the Steering Committee laid out in the community meeting. If change is good then what would be gained from dissecting the reasoning behind it? If I had seen a large group of opposition to the concept at NANOG 49 I would certainly have rethought my position, but since there wasn't such a group. We were lucky that we can have an amicable parting of the ways, so it appears the timing was right. I can't disagree more strongly with your statement that we've lost an opportunity. All the SC did was to create a wireframe organization that directly mirrors the present structure, sans Merit, of course. The community now has the opportunity to shape that organization through volunteering and direct involvement in the new organization. Doing the nuts and bolts work of creating a new organization is not done through committee, unless you want to spend endless hours arguing over the color of the bike shed. So now we have an organization with a BoD that is going to be subject to the same voting as the SC for NANOG proper. Other than that, we have committees, populated with volunteers from the community, that will shape the new organization going forward. You can lament or you can contribute. I prefer the latter. Regards, Mike ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] NANOG Transition - How we got here
Just an update on the budget - a more detailed budget is in the works. We had a brief delay in getting the Finance committee mailing list running, but now that we have it, work is progressing. I'm generating a new revision of the budget this week, and I'll run it by the committee on Thursday during our meeting, then shoot it to the SC. One word of warning - this is very much a strawman - directionally accurate, but intentionally conservative. It also lacks some of the line-item detail - there is too much aggregation. This is because we don't have the backward looking history of expenditures to break things out in a finer way. That will come in time. So, the budget will look like it is getting longer, but it will really be getting more detailed (and staying at the same $$$) as line items get de-aggregated. If anyone has budget questions or wants to help, please email me. Dan Golding Budget and Finance On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 10:13 PM, Andy Rosenzweig wrote: > Martin Hannigan wrote: >> >> _All_ of the theoretically newnog presentations including the "pro >> forma" presentation from 49 are still not online. If they are, they >> aren't in the usual places (next to the agenda item). Sunday is. Monday >> is not. > > > Find the slides here: > > http://newnog.org/docs/transition-cm.pdf > http://newnog.org/docs/transition-bof.pdf > > They will be added to the NANOG meeting archive. > > --Andy > > -- > Andy Rosenzweig > Merit Network, Inc. > > > > ___ > Nanog-futures mailing list > Nanog-futures@nanog.org > https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures > ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] NANOG Transition - How we got here
Martin Hannigan wrote: > > _All_ of the theoretically newnog presentations including the "pro > forma" presentation from 49 are still not online. If they are, they > aren't in the usual places (next to the agenda item). Sunday is. Monday > is not. Find the slides here: http://newnog.org/docs/transition-cm.pdf http://newnog.org/docs/transition-bof.pdf They will be added to the NANOG meeting archive. --Andy -- Andy Rosenzweig Merit Network, Inc. ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] NANOG Transition - How we got here
_All_ of the theoretically newnog presentations including the "pro forma" presentation from 49 are still not online. If they are, they aren't in the usual places (next to the agenda item). Sunday is. Monday is not. Best, -M< On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > > My issues are with how we got here. > > i have similar 'issues'. quite serious ones. > > when i find a time machine, i plan to deal with them, among many other > things. > > randy > > ___ > Nanog-futures mailing list > Nanog-futures@nanog.org > https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures > ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] NANOG Transition - How we got here
> My issues are with how we got here. i have similar 'issues'. quite serious ones. when i find a time machine, i plan to deal with them, among many other things. randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
[Nanog-futures] NANOG Transition - How we got here
Hi all - I spoke up at the community meeting and during the NANOG Transition BOF at NANOG, trying to get a better understanding of what was happening with NANOG. I asked a few questions, and admittedly got caught up in the moment during some of the discussions. A couple folks got the impression that I was AGAINST the transition. To be clear - - - I am NOT against the transition (of NANOG from a Merit activity to a new organization more tightly directed by elected members of the community). My issues are with how we got here. As I stated before, in the first Steering Committee I was pushing for the same thing (See slide 12 "Actual Results" of my NANOGHIstory slides from NANOG 37 back in 2007). The idea that the elected Steering Committee was merely an advisory role or meeting attendee advocate role just didn't seem rational - it provided the 'transparency' but lacked the 'accountability' aspect that we all required from the post-NANOG revolution phase. As several folks mentioned, there are indeed different interests at play between Merit and the NANOG community, as there in any partnership. My feeling was (and is) that this advisory form of Steering Committee-Merit relationship is not as effective as it needs to be. So the end state of some form of self-governed NANOG can be better. At this NANOG I had conversations with the NANOG Steering Committee members and the Merit folks about what led to this immediate transition. Based on what I learned, we have here is a classic inter-group conflict that could have been better handled with a mediator and informal discussions. The goals should have been ensuring buy in to cooperative transition, defining a plan and timeline for an orderly and coordinated community-driven transition plan. As is typical, the rationale from both sides included exaggerated perceptions about motivations and many assumptions about how the other side would react to various actions. In any case, instead, both sides have left the community with a transition where 1) the broader community was not brought along for the ride with identified problems and proposed solutions, it was a 'done deal' (this would have taken time) 2) the plan for this new NANOG was not shared broadly with the community (was not really developed fully), and yet 3) both sides agree the transition HAS TO HAPPEN now. So, as a community member, my opinion is that we lost an opportunity to do something really cool here: we could have taken the time to develop a newer and better NANOG organization while demonstrating the principles that led to the first revolution: transparency, accountability, as a newer, better NANOG, all done in a community-driven fashion. This would have taken time and some work, but it would have been pretty cool. But the past doesn't matter now, so Where are we now? Fundamentally, we all agree that the transition will happen, it will happen in a couple NANOGs, we all want it to be a success, we will try some new untested things. Just wanted to share where I am coming from, and I agree that the discussion should now be about what we should do. I look forward to that. Bill Sidenote - I would share in some of the blame in that we in the Steering Committees to date did not candidly describe some of these frictions in our meeting minutes; instead we all glossed over differences, and patted ourselves on the back for the progress and success of the meetings. It would have been helpful feedback back to the community how this SC-PC-MLC-NANOG experiment actually worked and where it didn't. As a result of lack of candor, we have nothing to point to, nothing for the successor SC to review that highlighted relationship challenges, what was tried to overcome those challenges, etc... in short, there is an absence of institutional memory for the future SCs and the community to highlight the problems and why the transition is the best solution to the problems identified. ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
