17 Apr
2014
17 Apr
'14
4:42 p.m.
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