[Nanog-futures] Transition update

Jay Hennigan jay at west.net
Wed Jun 2 19:17:53 UTC 2010

On 6/2/10 11:29 AM, Jo Rhett wrote:
> I don't deny that you have some very good questions.   I agree that forthcoming transparency would be an excellent thing.
> But having been through the creation of a new entity and separation from the old entity before, I can see a large number of factors which might be making these things difficult:
> 1.  There's a lot of work to be done creating a new entity.  Who are these fulltime paid-for-by-nanog-finances people to do this work?   This is a cart->horse problem they have to solve.

Agreed.  Hence my concern that doing this at all, or doing it now,
without resolving those issues first, might not be a wise thing to do.
Have you seen any satisfactory answers to the questions you raise above?

Indeed it seems as if there is a cart/horse problem here, which I
alluded to as "Ready, fire, aim, possibly skipping 'Ready'".

> 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.  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.

> So push for transparency for the new organization, but understand that transparency from Merit regarding the finances and employee information related to NANOG may never become public, and thus meeting minutes held under their structure may never become available.

OK, if that is the case, then the new organization should start off on
the right foot.

> 3. If there is a mailing list on the Internet with more (perhaps well-meaning) armchair critics, I can't imagine one more.   I applaud the NANOG SC for being willing to take on this bunch.  I also absolutely understand why they aren't going to write personal responses to every single member asking the same thing.   This very quickly becomes personal one-on-one training of the questioner on the topics and issues of which they are not familiar.  

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?

> I believe that creating a FAQ that attempts to answer the essential questions is a good use of their time.
> Summary:  This isn't easy.  There's a lot of work to do, given 0 paid workers to do it.   Give them a chance to prioritize their first deliverables, read the deliverables, and comment on that.

Agreed.  It isn't easy.  There is a very real probability that doing
really difficult things with 0 paid workers and inadequate resources and
planning will result in a much worse situation than not doing those
really difficult things at all.  Or at least not doing them immediately.
 If things are broken and need fixing (which seems to be the opinion of
the SC) then a definition of what is broken is in order, as well as a
definition of what the plan is to fix it.

> Any complaints about the lack of personal hands-on training (read: direct e-mail replies to each question asked) on the issues facing the creation of an organization and the issues they face doing it are simply out of line.   They could easily expend every moment they have available to work on NANOG doing this kind of personal training.

I have not initiated, nor have I seen anyone else in this forum initiate
any such request.  I have seen a FAQ that doesn't really explain
anything of substance.  This FAQ was written after the fact.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that anyone is requesting personal
hands-on training.

We are members of a community.  Some our leaders are proposing to make a
very significant change in the governance of that community.  Others
involved in the governance of the community state that they were not
informed of, and that they oppose, this significant change.

I am not asking for any personal hands-on training.  I am asking for a
summary of the reasoning behind the suggested change by those proposing
it, and while we are at it, the reasoning for the opposition to the
change by Merit.

This may indeed come out at the meeting at NANOG49.  But just like with
any ballot proposition, I would like to see arguments for and against in
advance of election day.  I don't consider such to be "personal,
hands-on training", merely the ability to make an informed decision.

Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - jay at impulse.net
Impulse Internet Service  -  http://www.impulse.net/
Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV

More information about the Nanog-futures mailing list