NANOG Changes

ren ren at gweep.net
Mon Feb 21 13:48:26 UTC 2005


Most of the note below is just a rant, similar in form to the dozen notes 
by a handful of posters over the weekend here, on NANOG-Reform & 
NANOG-Futures.  C'mon folks, refocus that energy into doing something 
professional and positive for the NANOG community.

Please cease demands for over-the-top documentation from hard-working 
volunteers.  Fixating on a stray message or two that were sent in advance 
of archive activation is fruitless.  There is no way what was said in the 
halls at the NANOG meetings - in Reston or Vegas - about this project could 
be documented in full either.  Embrace the progress made on many fronts and 
work towards the by-laws. -ren


At 08:59 PM 2/20/2005 -0800, Michel Py wrote:

>Hi Gadi,
>
> > Gadi Evron wrote:
> > Please read the below text in full, if you are going to read
> > any of it. I use a lot of cynicism to get my point across.
>
>Same here. Besides cynicism, I also use (and possibly abuse) sarcasm.
>
>
> > I haven't been involved with the NANOG reform initiative,
> > and haven't really commented on it, as I liked what I saw
> > and am not really that involved with NANOG politics - and
> > that's just how I like it.
> > However, I can't ignore some of the things I am seeing
> > lately from the outside, hence my comments, which are mine
> > alone and stand as opinions others don't have to accept.
> > Also, I may be wrong. Replies I received, especially from
> > Steve, satisfied me originally. No longer.
>
>FWIW, I am interested in hearing more about the "no longer" part.
>
>
> > I believe in Merit's wishes, good will, hard work and promises.
> > I really do.
>
>For the record, I do not believe in wishes, good will, promises, rumors,
>buzzwords and the list is too long to go on. I believe in results.
>Except:
>
> > hard work.
>
>I do believe in this one. It does not mean that I like it, as I prefer
>napping on the beach with nothing to do to working, but I do believe in
>this one anyway. If anyone has good tips on how to achieve the same by
>napping on the beach instead of hard working, please speak up!
>
>
> > And I am willing to give them time and working-space.
>
>Same here.
>
>
> > Thing is, we seem to be missing something.
> > Martin Hannigan, an all around good guy, seems (to me) to
> > have made a snag at management, hiding behind the reform.
>
>I could have written this myself. For the record, these are my own words
>posted on nanog-reform 3 days ago:
>
>"This will be perceived by the innocent bystander as follows: Martin
>wanted Susan's job and got it through backroom maneuvers in the dark."
>
>
> > Can't argue with my ill-formed and un-informed feelings
> > (or any feelings for that matter), right?
>
>Whether your feelings are ill-formed and/or un-informed is not relevant
>to me (also valid for my own feelings, BTW). Paul Vixie and William
>Allen Simpson have recently worded better text than I could about this.
>
>
> > You can explain to me, how this is not the case and I am making
> > stupid deductions, based on facts you did not yet easily provide
> > - that has yet to happen. I wonder why. Please give me facts that
> > will burn these weird ideas our of my skull.. please.. I *want*
> > to see the light.
>
>I'm afraid I want to see the light as much as you do, not the one
>carrying the light.
>
>
> > Now, I don't really mind the reform or Martin doing it, I just
> > don't see how it is "visible" beyond us just being "told" about it.
>
>My point also.
>
>
> > When I am *told* about something, I go to conspiracy theories,
>
>This reminds me that I have to have a good talk between me, my ego and
>my subconscious mind about conspiracy theories. Do you have two other
>guys in your brain too?
>
>
> > and then to investigation. I am paranoid, it's my job.
>
>If you don't mind my asking, is this a _paying_ job? If yes, I wouldn't
>mind a copy of the application form :-)
>
>
> > You don't have to like my opinions or listen to me. But me and how
> > many others have these mis-conceptions? Please share with us few
> > idio... ignorant fools.
>
>I would have written:
>"idio^H^H^H^H ignorant fools."
>
>
> > Enlighten us.
>
>As mentioned earlier, I am not the one carrying the light. I expect Sue
>Joiner to shed light soon though.
>
>
> > "Provisional" [government] is way too "un-declared" in my
> > opinion. Please "define" what "provisional" means. Also,
> > I am overly uncomfortable about the lack of visibility from
> > the offset. Visibility is the main "thing" Merit promised.
>
>Gadi, you are preaching the choir.
>
>[This sounds weird to me as much as I expect it does to you; not only I
>do not know of everyone that actually has preached a choir, it does not
>appear to me that you could be one of these. Nevertheless it is a very
>common English/American sentence; non-native English speakers, google is
>your friend]
>
>
> > Now, I don't personally know you, but I doubt you would lie
> > about this. However, I also know Martin to be a good an
> > honourable guy, so I'd suggest you post the email messages
> > that disappeared, here, and let us decide if there is
> > censorship
>
>The messages that have disappeared have been forwarded to Sue. I am
>happy to forward them to you if requested, but I would ask the same
>favor I asked Sue: don't trust me and cross check with someone else that
>has received them. IMHO, the posts themselves (save for William's one, a
>"technical casualty" me thinks) are as relevant if not more than the
>fact they have "disappeared".
>
>
> > and indeed Martin is an asshole, or if you are just a troll who
> > sends out accusations without proof to back them up. No offense..
>
>None taken.
>
>
> > just being honest as I don't know the facts and I form opinions
> > based on what I do know and feel when such facts are not provided.
>
>This is an honorable position.
>
> > Any replies sent to me that do not refer to the full text will
> > be ignored, as taking sentences out of context here is way too
> > easy, and I'm too tired for yet another flame bait.
>
>I believe I did not remove any. If I did, or have further questions,
>please say so.
>
>Michel.





More information about the NANOG mailing list