On 10/27/10 10:11 PM, John Springer wrote: > Sorry, not to be dense, but what? I believe it is all up for discussion. > Or is that code for shut up? It is already decided and voted upon. Our mission at this point is to determine what this will look like and try to reach a consensus. It is too late to unring the bell of transitioning to NewNOG. There is no point now or pissing and moaning about the process that got us to this point if there is nothing that can be done about it. Let's get to the point of defining the paid membership and stop trying to analyze the process that got us here. >> We needed some way to determine who is a membership for GOVERNANCE or >> NewNOG. The membership needs to be separated from conference >> attendance. > > Why exactly is that? So someone can govern the corporation. The mailing list is not going to fund itself out of thin air. The federal regulations require that there be members of the organization, at least this is my understanding of what has been presented. I am not a corporate lawyer, but I can ask some. I believe that these types of questions have already been asked, and this is why they were put into the initial bylaws written by the lawyer.
>> Some of this is required by US regulations, > > Citations greatly appreciated. As a lawyer. I have only second hand knowledge. >> some of it is >> required for other reasons. > > Such as? I believed I detailed those below, and you replied to them. >> Conference attendance was never a good way >> to determine who was a member, and who had the right to vote. > > According to whom? But nevertheless, fine. Let's vote on it. Oh wait, > we disenfranchised ourselves. Never mind. But wait! I bought a > refranchise. Let's Vote! Your sarcasm is noted, but not helpful. This was the directive that we were given. Good, bad or indifferent, it was the directive that we were given, and the direction we took. I believe it is important also, as it separates those that don't want to worry about the governance of the organization, and those that want to reap the benefits of the activities the corporate organization sponsors. > Fair enough. So that if the idea of paid membership _WAS_ put to a > vote, only those interested in governance would have voted? Would that > have been bad? I'm sorry, I believe the bylaws were put to a vote, along with the initiative to move forward with transition to NewNOG. I believe those that were present and eligible to vote, and cared to vote, voted for it. If they didn't, then I don't understand why we are even at this point. It was not a line-item vote. Most people don't get that in life. > So these folks have never been able to vote. Let's fix that. But then, > they have lost nothing. So far, in fact, they might have gained > something at the expense of the previous enfranchisees. Women in the beginning of the last century never had the right to vote. Other minorities didn't either. I guess your argument is that they didn't need to have the right to vote, as they would not have lost anything if they never got it. But the problem is... They wanted the right to vote. They were part of the community, and their opinions were just as valid as anyone's. >> 1) It provides a list of individuals that are interested in the >> GOVERNANCE of NewNOG > > And what use is going to be made of that? Straw man, can of worms. Defining the individuals that are interested in governance is actually a way to enfranchise those that are interested, and protect the interest of the organization by making it more difficult to stuff the ballot box. If we allow votes from both conference attendees and people that don't attend a conference, then what is to stop someone from stuffing the ballot? Having a list of voters is a good thing. It ensures that we don't end up with things like fake people, or dead people, from voting. Even the US government makes voters register and doesn't want the undead to vote. >> 2) It provides for separation between those interested in GOVERNANCE and >> those just wanting to socialize at the conference. > > Seriously? Why is separation a good thing? This statement sounds a bit > exclusionary. IIRC, there is a bit of a social swirl around Congress? > Constituents, and all that. Oh, you want to vote? Pay up, poll tax. Again, this was a directive that w were given, but it is also on that I agree with. Only 5% of the people that attend a conference is interested in the business of NANOG (and NewNOG). I am not checking numbers, but I believe it is close to this. The other 95% are either ineligible to vote, are first time attendees that are unlikely to come back, or just don't care about it. Those people don't need to have their time wasted with the business side of things. It is an exclusion, but it is a self exclusion. If a person is not interested, they don't have to be bothered by it. If they are interested, then they can join in. It makes both conference attendance and management attendance to be completely optional and not tied to each other. > This is a gloss, but OK. But instead of saying everybody pony up some > number of bux that we can't talk about, how about the Board of > Directors estimate how much they think they will need, BETWEEN NOW AND > NANOG 51. Because that is what we are really talking about here, > right? or maybe betweeen now and NANOG 52, because after that the > revenue stream gets a whole lot wider. and see if we can't cover > October-June with a one time pledge or something. cuz the list at: > http://www.newnog.org/donors.php which is out of date, doesn't look > like it is getting there. And the real and only reason we are supposed > to swallow all this is that NANOG needs 10 grand to last until then? > And you can't just come out and say it? Really? NewNOG will have expenses that need to be paid. It has the ED to pay for. It has servers to pay for. It will have conference and hotel costs to pay for NANOG 52. It will have no other income until that time. Most hotels and conference centers require a substantial down payment several months in advance. NANOG has never had conference attendees register and pay 6 months in advance, but the down payment is usually due that far in advance. The paid membership is not just about this, though. It is about making sure that those that are interested enough in the governance of the corporation are the ones that are involved in it and there is not shady business. >> The definition in 4.1 of the proposal is not excluding anyone that wants >> to be part of NewNOG or NANOG. In fact, is specifically INCLUDES them. >> >> 4.1 (new) Members are required to be active within the Internet >> network operations community by way of current employment or previous >> employment if retired, participation in industry forums, academic >> instruction or scholarship, or volunteer positions. >> >> I would count participation in NANOG as "participation in industry >> forums." NewNOG as well. > > Fine. Put that language in the proposal. Lurkers count? How many > posts? You say elsewhere that the verbiage matters. Pony up. What about my previous language? Does that make you feel better? 4.1 (new) Members are required to be active in the Internet operations community through employment, academic research, instruction or study or involvement in industry forums. I think it says the same thing.Basically if you are interested enough in Internet network operations to be active in it, then you can get in. And NANOG is considered to be an industry forum. I don't see why any more or less language is needed. > I am quibbling. But honestly, it is deserved. We have all been talked > into disenfranchisement seppuku. "This was not done by fiat. Don't > worry. Trust us. It will be all right." If you say it enough times, it > must be true. Right? OK, fine. But now there is no hurry. There is no > reason to shut up and lay down. Don't take it out on me. I am not part of the SC that initiated this process. I have nothing to gain or loose except for the ability to help NewNOG. > I like Joe's minimum verbiage, but to me the core is this: For better > or worse, there was an enfranchised group before. There is a > (supposedly) enfranchised group now that is much smaller. The getting > from there to here has been the result of a lot of obscurantist > rhetoric. That needs to stop, or at least, we need sunshine. If there > is going to be fiat, let it be vox populi. Nobody here is giving you rhetoric. Nobody here has anything to gain that has not already been voted into existence. -Sean _______________________________________________ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
