[Nanog-futures] Transition update

Jo Rhett jrhett at netconsonance.com
Thu Jun 3 16:47:02 UTC 2010


On Jun 2, 2010, at 12:17 PM, Jay Hennigan wrote:
>> 2. I agree completely that the new entity should be completely transparent to the members.   This is a good idea.   However, I have seen major problems with this in the past, where the original entity was unwilling to meet the new transparency desires of the new entity.   This makes it very difficult until after significant progress in the transition is completed.
> 
> Agreed 100%.  Do you also agree that such transparency has been lacking
> in the announcements to date by the new entity.

No.  It's been a very small number of weeks since the first announcement.   Are you expecting daily reports from these unpaid people?   Shall we micro-manage the SC?

> There has been
> transparency only in that they are doing it, not why they are doing it.
> Very limited transparency in how they are doing it and how it will be
> better than the status quo.

Unless you are paying their salaries, I might suggest learning some patience.

> I for one have never asked for nor received personal responses to any of

> my questions.  I have asked for public clarification.  I don't consider
> myself to be an armchair critic.  I saw, out of the blue, an
> announcement that a decision had been made "unanimously" to sever ties
> with Merit followed within hours by a statement from Merit that they had
> not been informed of this in advance and were opposed to it.  Is Merit
> an "armchair critic" here?

Oh, now we are debating the meaning of "Is". 

*plonk*

-- 
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source and other randomness




More information about the Nanog-futures mailing list