North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: NANOG Changes
I promised some people that I'd comment publically on the moderation change. Selecting Steve's message at random as a place to start, let me just quote: > From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Steve Gibbard) > Subject: Re: NANOG Changes > Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 01:04:51 -0800 (PST) > > Speaking only for myself (and certainly not for Merit): > > The NANOG Reform group (http://www.nanog-reform.org), which has already > gone on record supporting an open and democratic NANOG, was asked for > volunteers. I think all three of us are looking at this as a temporary > assignment until the broader issues of NANOG governance are sorted out. First, I am speaking only for myself and not for my employer or for Merit or for the nanog-reform community. Having discharged my duties as co-moderator of the Las Vegas meeting, I'm now just another bozo on this bus. Second, I am uncomfortable having folks from the nanog-reform community accepting responsibility for provisional moderation (a form of interrim governance), since it's a nominal conflict of interest. I wish that Steve and Martin and others involved in drafting bylaws had refused to serve as interrim moderators. Failing that, I'd like these moderators to stand down from any elected position for a period of at least a year from the formation of the new permanent governance structure. Third, I think that the current unilateral governance system where Merit decides what's the best thing to do after collecting input from interested parties (which, by the way, is exactly what the nanog-reform community set out to change) means that it's basically Merit's decision right now who moderates and how. I wish that Merit had reached out to the whole nanog@ community in search of interrim moderators rather than limiting its solicitation to the nanog-reform@ or any other subcommunity. Fourth, I do not think Merit or Steve or Martin or anyone else has any dark motives about this, and I'm sure that these interrim moderators will do a fine job. I just wish that all the political I's would get dotted and all the political T's would get crossed. Perception isn't *actually* reality, but in politics (which this is) the difference between perception and reality is just not worth discussing. Finally, to those among you who have counselled me against this contrarian position on the grounds that I might self-marginalize: you should go read the archives of this and perhaps other mailing lists. Me being an outlier will surprise approximately nobody.