North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

RE: NANOG Changes

  • From: ren
  • Date: Mon Feb 21 08:53:46 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.

> 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.