[Nanog-futures] Transition update
sean at labrats.us
Wed Jun 9 11:08:40 UTC 2010
Randy Bush wrote:
> but, with no data from our fearless  leadership, what else are we to
> do, talk about NATO black helicopters?
We could talk about natto, but what is there to say about fermented soy
beans other than they are sticky and stink?
Seriously, though, I get the feeling that the discussion around this
whole matter is due to the lack of information regarding why THIS SC
felt the need to depart from the status quo when it appears to others to
have been working , and a concern that whatever come next may not be
Of course, another part of this is that NANOG is a community with no
real concept of membership. Some may feel that THIS SC is trying to
hijack NANOG by incorporating and obtaining some nefarious legal status.
If the corporate entity fails to fulfill the membership's needs, the
the NANOG community is left without the resources of the NANOG banner,
and will have to try to re-create from scratch. I mean, who wants to
attend the North America Network Operators Community (NANOC) meetings
when they are expecting the NANOG meetings?
I would think that there may also me less apprehension if as part of
incorporating, THIS SC was disbanded, and a new election was held for
the new board of directors. We certainly should reward all the hard
work that it takes make this happen, but anything that THIS SC does,
should not mean automatic entitlement to some type of corporate royal
 Working as defined as the Internet presence was up and reachable for
99+ percent of the time, and the meetings took place as expected with
topics that were interesting, although not interesting to all the people
all the time.
More information about the Nanog-futures