All,
Bart definitely provides good technical leadership; and I agree that we need more folks on the board.
I'll be forthright and honest though:
- there must be collaboration, willingness, partnership and agreement to move things forward - we must also have folks that are willing to listen to all sides - we must have folks that are willing to help - they must also know about nonprofits in addition to networks and other technical matters - we need someone that's versed in ARIN policy (and perhaps the workings of the ISOC) as well.
On those first three points, I will not argue; and honestly (and probably shockingly), I do think Bart would make a good Executive Director; but I do not think that he would make a good Board member. I simply do not see him as one willing to listen, partner or collaborate. All I've seen is willingness to tear down and rebuild the infrastructure from the ground up, all other nodes be damned, as long as HamWAN works. Having been on the board of a non profit, the an executive director of another non-profit, a CIO in government, CTO/board memebr in private industry and also as the current administrator of a governmental network that encompasses hundreds of miles of fiber, has over 300 points of presence and maintains nearly /18 worth of public and private address space, plus their services in the largest county in the state of Maryland, I'm worried on many fronts (and yes, throwing in my qualifications - more so to show I'm qualified to show genuine worry).
I've asked Bart to contribute the changes he wishes me to implement on our nodes:
- he wouldn't - so I drafted them myself, he would not confirm - I reminded him, he tells me that they shouldn't be necessary, edits the parameters - He then tells me he's contributed all the time he will to the matter - still no viable draft - Despite all this, I then implement the changes and he has yet to confirm they are working - Now he asks for a board position; but has not offered nor contributed one SUCCESSFUL structural improvement to ARDC's infrastructure
I'll be the first to admit this tears me apart, because I've been following HamWAN for months, admire them and want to glean from their successes when we implement in the Washington, DC area (I'm on the MDC Section HSMM implementation task force). I have to say, though, I was shocked when I realized thier lead guy was the one wanting to tear current infrastructure apart simply to make HamWAN work with AMPRNet as he envisioned it, leaving connectivity gaps, not providing a routing 44GW, etc.
Next, I understand he has his own ASN and therefore probably a pretty good infrastructure; but it is a commercial outfit. UCSD has been very gracious to HamRadio over the years, and anyone wanting to make such drastic moves will probably also want to move the AMPRNet NOC. Simply throwing one's hat into the ring without some promises on how you plan to "steer the ship" is not good for the whole of the Amateur Community Worldwide. Simply not having a Z in the ARIN whois totally misses the point that the Amateur Radio allocations existed before those numbering schemes existed; and as another stations said, probably not even bound by the Legacy Agreement, as it not a requirement that it be signed by those possessing their legacy allocations.
Someone coming on board would also have to draft a plan to fill in financial gaps we're expriecing (please donate to ARDC); we don't need a leader, as we have one in Brain, we need someone that will help him; and frankly, that's his decision to make. Regarding how to do so, as I understand it, Brian is the only Director, he would call the annual meeting and vote as he is the only voting member. I'd just personally ask that we have some geographic diversity in case the West Coast floats off into the Pacific with the "proverbial bus."
And I would ask those voting, that if one will not take the time to work on a implementation and testing of one simple script, will he magically have time to direct a world-wide amateur radio network?
-KB3VWG