North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: NANOG Changes

  • From: Stephen J. Wilcox
  • Date: Mon Feb 21 10:40:55 2005

Arhchive here michael:

not sure if its complete yet but i know merit are trying to include the first 
few messages

nanog-reform here:

again, dont know how complete it is. understand also, the list has been open to 
subscriptions, the reason for creating it was to allow a bunch of people to kick 
some ideas around before airing them and getting into a mess of discussions much 
like what we have now. 

we saw this successful in vegas with the community forum and the document on the 
nanog-reform site was well put together.

what we have now is what happens when 5000 people try to negotiate which is many 
varying opinions, vocal people getting more airtime than they ought to when 
their opinions are only their opeinions and nnot necessarily the opinions of any 
large group. 

some folks need to write a document, propose it, vote on  it and majority 
rules.. not everyone will like all of it but its not possible to write a 
document that satisfies everyone 100%. i believe thats the aim of the bbylaws 
doc - please dont flame it, provide constructive comments, be prepared to 
compromise and dont get lost in minutia when the major points have yet to be 


On Mon, 21 Feb 2005, [email protected] wrote:

> > > Aha! So there really is more stuff hidden away on that
> > > site for the chosen few. Perception is reality, eh?
> >    People, please, gain some perspective here.  Nobody wants the 
> > thankless job of maintaining a mailing list that badly.
> Perhps I'm being too subtle here. I fully realize that
> all these irregularities are the result of incompetence and
> not of malice. But, as Paul Vixie wisely pointed out,
> in the realm of politics, perception equals reality.
> If something is not completely in the open then people
> tend to believe that there are nefarious plotters doing
> backroom deals to sieze power.
> The i's need to be dotted and the t's need to be crossed.
> If there is really a nanog-reform mailing list associated
> with then put information about it on
> the website. Move the petition signers to a secondary page.
> Put a link to (and explanation of) the wiki on the
> homepage.
> If there really is an archive of nanog-futures then put 
> information about it on the website.
> If there really are some interim results as reflected
> by the several emails on the NANOG list, then put this
> info on the website.
> Dot the i's. Cross the t's.
> The community to which NANOG addresses itself is only
> partially represented by this mailing list and even less
> represented by the NANOG meetings themselves. There are
> many, many IP network operators in North America (and 
> elsewhere) who would benefit from greater cooperation
> and communication through a medium like NANOG. In order
> to reach out to them, we have to stop posting in cryptic
> language and assuming that everyone is part of the in-crowd
> and knows how to find that one reference to a nanog-reform
> list buried somewhere in the archives of this mailing list.
> This is not an attack on any one person but rather a general
> comment on behavior which is widespread on this list.
> It's the middle of the noughties now and the Internet has
> grown up. We need to move on and restructure our forums and
> organizations to better meet the needs of the industry
> and the IP network operations community.
> --Michael Dillon