North American Network Operators Group

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


  • From: Hannigan, Martin
  • Date: Mon Jun 20 19:59:12 2005

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
> Daniel Golding
> Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 1:30 PM
> To: Randy Bush; Betty Burke
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: [NON-OPERATIONAL] Re: NANOG Evolution
> Randy,
> People's employers are posted at 
> It gets a bit complicated because some folks work at "infrastructure"
> companies - collocation/peering or DNS (Mark, Bill, Josh, 
> Marty). 

It shouldn't be complicated. I think "members" are looking
for Operator experience. I don't think it's too hard to make that
easily discernable as long as it's fair. 

One thing that nags me a bit is we're not doing this at
an actual NANOG meeting. Candidates don't get to discuss
their qualifications and make a pitch to get elected. It's
hard to determine if "someone" is suitable for the responsibilities
if you cannot hear/see/get a feel for where they are coming from.
This goes to leveling of the playing field. You may have a cruddy
bio, but be a great candidate, and vice versa.

How do you propose we get out the information as to why we should
be elected to represent the group at large?

[ dead horse ]

Lastly, "6.2.1 Program Committee Membership and Selection " is 
not acceptable, IMO, for the group at large. It should be normalized 
much like the Mailing List Admins. This disables the ability of the 
Steering Committee to lead. 

Ultimately, the SC is elected to represent the membership and 
carry out it's will and that should be uniformly actionable 
across the board in order for the SC to be taken seriously
by the group and by Merit.