[Nanog-futures] Transition update

Sean Figgins sean at labrats.us
Wed Jun 9 11:08:40 UTC 2010

Randy Bush wrote:
> but, with no data from our fearless [0] 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 [1], 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 

[1] 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 mailing list