North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: NANOG Changes (and proposal)

  • From: Howard C. Berkowitz
  • Date: Thu Feb 17 08:35:30 2005 


Hi everyone - apologies for a rather long message, but I wanted to
bring you up-to-date on some steps the Program Committee and Merit
have taken to evolve NANOG since our community meeting in Las Vegas.
*Many thanks* to those of you who attended and gave us feedback - we
learned a lot and look forward to working with all of you to
maintain the high standards we have come to expect from NANOG.








Second, the NANOG Program Committee has elected a new chair - thank
you Steve Feldman! Steve will now handle speaker communications
that deal with content, and will make any last-minute decisions
about what to include on the agenda.



Third, we are creating a new email list, NANOG-futures, to discuss
NANOG's evolution. We hope you'll participate - watch for a message
later today or tomorrow about subscribing and a proposed time-line
for moving us forward.




In the past, I've suggested (and volunteered for) NANOG to have a
more extensive publication program, not simply an archive of
presentation. There are some extremely valuable pages on the NANOG
website, but I believe there is value to having a slightly more
formalized publication process. RIPE and RIPE-NCC have done so for
some time, with very useful outputs.



It has been suggested that the IETF RFC process can serve, but there
are problems with that. IETF's process is optimized more for
developers than operators. It also can be slow, not from controversy
but simply from administrative process and workload. I'm sure I'm not
the only author to see a year or two elapse between working group
consensus and final RFC publication.



Betty, would you see this discussed on NANOG-futures? Is it
worthwhile to reopen exploratory decisions on the main list?