[Nanog-futures] what the heck is nanog, anyway?

[Randy Bush]

as an introspective point, rodney has given me his consent to
repost this message from a couple of years back.

randy

---

From: Rodney Joffe <rjoffe at centergate.com>
To: <nanog-reform at nac.net>
Subject: Re: [nanog-reform] Definition of membership
Date: Fri, 07 January 2005 11:04:05 PM GMT-07:00

On 1/7/05 6:18 PM, "Daniel Golding" <dgolding at burtongroup.com wrote:
> Rodney,
>
> I came up with that because I couldn't think of a better way to:
>
> 1) ensure that a person is voting once and is a real person (tie to
> registration email and a payment at some point)
>
> 2) ensure some (even tenuous) connection to the NANOG constituency.
>
> Its not optimal, but I'm somewhat at a loss to better define an  
> electorate.
>
> Do you have any suggestions?
>
> Should folks be able to join for a moderate fee, which is
> included in NANOG registration? (so, if you don't attend, you
> could pay $20 or something to vote? Are they other benefits?)  >

I guess we should ask what the objective of nanog really is... and
what the *electorate* will actually vote on. If it's deciding on
what cookies to have during the mid-morning break, I don't give a
crap about being able to vote.  If it's about rules and terms for
network wide behavior, or appropriate problem escalation procedures
and protocols, sign me up. Jeez, if its even about source packet
responsibility, where do I send my check?

<greybeard brainfart>

Is it a forum for general discussion of network issues that affect
North America?

Is it a forum for the above by actual operators, or Ph.D.'s who
have 3 machines and a cable modem at home, and who love academic
discussion of theoretical edge cases - many times based on reading
PC Week while sitting in the dentist's waiting room?

Is it a forum for people who have specific operational issues that
affect large populations of users inside their network as well as
affecting other networks?

Is it a *club*?

Is it a mechanism for generating revenue for some kind of entity or
group, or activity?

Is it a social body?

I have an interest in an organization that can act as a point of
"attraction" for clueful geeks who run networks that carry real
traffic that my packets interact with on a constant basis, and
where any issue that they have with their networks often affects my
ability to make my bits go where they are intended, and vice
versa. I don't mind it being populated by clueful geeks from
equipment vendors who can contribute to operational discussions by
providing information or advice that relates to their products or
the operation of networks in general, without smothering me with
sales puffery. And who can also take information away from such
discussion, and make improvements in their products to help the
network I play on "better".

I want people who actually do things on networks, rather than
people who pontificate about what aught to happen on networks. I
want people who can practice Gestalt Protocol without
bullshit. People who can say "In my experience..." and actually
have some that is relevant. I want people who can say "This is what
you're seeing, and this is what is causing it, and this is how to
fix it", and it does. And I want people who can say "It's my
responsibility, I'll jump on it and fix it", and who will.

And to belong to *that* organization, I'll pay whatever it costs.
And if that requires me to go to a meeting once a year, I will. Or
pay $20.  Or $100. But if the requirement for one of these things
means that one of those people I want to be involved with is
prohibited from being a part of that organization, then I don't
want that requirement.

Now, some others may be happy to pay these prices (for whatever
metric for price you want to use) for what is currently nanog. I am
not. I suspect many of the people I would like to have as part of
nanog feel the same way, but I have been wrong almost all of my
life.

</greybeard brainfart>

So what is the objective of nanog supposed to be? Maybe then it
would be appropriate to decide on what constitutes a member, and a
requirement for membership.


---

Begin forwarded message:

From: Randy Bush <randy at psg.com>
Date: January 8, 2005 12:15:09 AM GMT-07:00
To: Rodney Joffe <rjoffe at centergate.com>
Cc: <nanog-reform at nac.net>
Subject: Re: [nanog-reform] Definition of membership

<aol>me too</aol>

though i think you characterization of some of the academics a
bit over-rough.  some are quite ops clueful, though they may
not run a backbone.  paxson, bellovin, ... come to mind right
off.

randy