Re: [Nanog-futures] Final bylaws proposal
On 10/2/10 10:46 AM, Daniel Golding wrote: This really depends on what the mission of the organization is. A vehicle to do NANOG conferences? A way of hosting mailing lists? Or something a bit more ambitious that addresses the need for a professional organization for network engineering in North America? While I would be happy if we were looking at NewNOG to be a professional organization, these ideas seemed to be pretty well rejected by pretty much everyone. The state of network engineering education is truly abysmal. From what I can tell, there are no reasonable undergraduate programs. I agree, but I would not hire someone for an inter-networking job based on a college degree or professional affiliation. If anything, I have a bias against college graduates and especially if they have any kind of degree based on computers or MIS. Especially MIS. Engineering degrees are almost as bad, but at least most engineers are trained to think for themselves. Most other programs are indoctrinating the students to thing a specific way. I don't care for new employees that thing they know what is best. I REALLY don't want that from a fresh-out-of-college employee that knows nothing. As far as the bylaws in general - I think Steve Gibbard has done a wonderful job, just as he's always done for NANOG, with little thanks and absolutely no recognition. He's not the kind of guy that gets a special colored badge at conferences or who gets a lot of thanks from the podium, but every few years when we really need him, he's there for all of us and he always delivers. If anyone here is volunteering to help him, this would be the right time to step up. I volunteered to help. I am available any time to help with this type of stuff. Just don't ask for my opinion, then ignore me. Again, no offense meant to anyone that worked hard to put this together. I know everyone worked and tried hard. -Sean ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Final bylaws proposal
On Oct 2, 2010, at 8:31 PM, Daniel Golding wrote: Or maybe someone from the steering committee can step up and comment. That would be refreshing. I'll bite, but I think Steve Gibbard already said most of what I'd say. The membership working group was asked to come up with a membership plan, and that work has been done. We are now at the point where its time to vote on it. I think the discussion here is healthy and I very much appreciate it. If the to-be-voted-upon membership language is not appropriate for us going forward, it won't be the end of the world if we have to change it. If the proposal is voted down, it won't be the end of the world either. Regardless what happens next I'd like to thank those that worked on it for taking the time and sticking their necks out. DW ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Final bylaws proposal
If the to-be-voted-upon membership language is not appropriate for us going forward, it won't be the end of the world if we have to change it. If the proposal is voted down, it won't be the end of the world either. perhaps the bylaws should have been segmented for voting? randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Final bylaws proposal
I've stated it before I think, I have no problem with student's being member's or having a discounted rate. New blood in the community should be encouraged and celebrated, and if they wish to participate in the the governance, so much the better. They should however simply be members regardless of fee schedule. On 10/2/10 9:46 AM, Daniel Golding wrote: I think your comments are a bit harsh on students, especially I don't see any value to NANOG, though, as most students lack any experience in inter-networking, or common sense, for that matter. This really depends on what the mission of the organization is. A vehicle to do NANOG conferences? A way of hosting mailing lists? Or something a bit more ambitious that addresses the need for a professional organization for network engineering in North America? The state of network engineering education is truly abysmal. From what I can tell, there are no reasonable undergraduate programs. On the graduate side, we get the sort of presentations at NANOG that led us to have a research forum which is a codeword for get the hell out of the main session while some kid presents on something he doesn't understand. I guess that sounds a bit harsh, too :) What do student memberships bring to any professional organization? Nothing in terms of governance, common sense, or professional knowledge, generally. However, they do provide other, less tangible benefits. It gets students interested in the profession into a situation where they are affiliated with an organization that is composed of practitioners, not ill-informed academics. ACM has done a pretty good job with this. I doubt we'll see many (if any at all) student memberships initially. However, having this hook in the bylaws allows us to expand into more educational programming without having to do a change to the bylaws, which is a pretty big pain. As far as the bylaws in general - I think Steve Gibbard has done a wonderful job, just as he's always done for NANOG, with little thanks and absolutely no recognition. He's not the kind of guy that gets a special colored badge at conferences or who gets a lot of thanks from the podium, but every few years when we really need him, he's there for all of us and he always delivers. If anyone here is volunteering to help him, this would be the right time to step up. - Dan On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Sean Figgins s...@labrats.us mailto:s...@labrats.us wrote: On 10/1/10 11:19 PM, Randy Bush wrote: my comment from 9/22 that at most there should be two membership states, members and non still stands. if there is a membership fee, i can see a student discount. Not everyone on the membership working group agreed with all the membership classifications. I, for one, see no need for a student classification. In fact, I still see no value in student membership for governance of NewNOG, which is all membership is for at this point. Students already get a discount on the price of conferences, so I am told. I can see value to the students to attend the conferences, as it is a learning experience for them, just like the rest of us. I don't see any value to NANOG, though, as most students lack any experience in inter-networking, or common sense, for that matter. The bylaws could use quite a bit of improvement, and should have had some proofreading done before being put to a vote, as the structure is less than consistent, but... At this point, I do not see any more changes going into the bylaws before the election. My suggestion would be to vote to ratify the bylaws and the transition, and then at the next annual election, we can amend the bylaws and fix what needs to be fixed. My comments are in no way meant to lessen the efforts of the individuals involved. They put in a lot of hard work for very little recognition and even less personal benefit. There was very little time to pull this together, and most have a paying job that demands their time and attention. It is more a miracle that we have anything to vote on at all. -Sean ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org mailto:Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Final bylaws proposal
On 10/3/10 7:55 AM, Daniel Golding wrote: As with networking protocols, perfect is the enemy of good enough. The question at this point isn't can we please everyone, its is this draft sufficiently functional to get us to the next version. I think the answer is clearly yes. Clearly, I think the answer is yes as well. In terms of Sean's comments about a community process - I think we had one. Volunteers were solicited. The work was divided. While it might be an interesting though-experiment to have hundreds of people working on this process, all working on the same bits, simultaneously, I don't think that can work, either logistically, or promptly. Not quite what I had in mind. My point is that when I volunteered for the membership working group, I anticipated some discussion on the membership working group mailing list, and a few conference calls. There was VERY little discussion on the mailing list, and of the two conference calls, one barely made quorum, and the other did not even have the chair able to attend. When suggestions were made, a response came back that indicated that they were not really welcome, and specifics would be worked out outside of the working group. When consensus was reached among the members that seemed to care, about certain items, they ended up not making it into the language that ended up int he bylaws. When draft amendment language was written and proposed to the list to generate discussion, it was ignored. Even the fees were not negotiated, although the representative from the finance working group said that they were pulled out of thin air, and should not mean that they were suggested. Many of us though that $100 per year was too high for people that would not get corporate sponsorship. Others though that it was too low because ARIN charges considerable more. It is not that I expected hundreds or thousands of people to be working on this. I just expected that once the work was delegated to a committee, it would be worked on by that committee, and not end up being worked on by one person in the committee with outsiders, in complete disregard for anything that was going on inside the committee. In the end, I gave up on trying to help. No bad feelings for anyone in the committee. Everyone has things that they need to be doing that they get paid for. Not everyone has the time to lively discussions. I tried to help because I thought that this was important, but in the end, I end up with a sour taste in my mouth from the process. To see this represented to the outside as something that was worked on and decided by the committee... Well, it just is not true. On 10/3/10 8:22 AM, John Osmon wrote: I personally think that membership can be differentiated best by full and non. Any special cases can be dealt with by fee structure. Obviously others thought it was important to move in another direction. Something like that was certainly proposed in the membership working group, and rather than generate any discussion, it was ignored. Well, not a definition of non-members. I think it can be assumed that anyone that is not a member is a non-member. I think this is all I am going to say about this any more. In the end, it doesn't matter. NANOG will still be NANOG. If this experiment fails, there will be something that replaces it. -Sean ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Final bylaws proposal
One thing to keep clearly in mind here - the last charter was an iterative process. It took three to four years to fine tune it, between the mistakes, the unforeseen impacts, and the necessary removal of bootstrap language. USD 20 says that, by the time we can get the extra categories out of the bylaws, there will be annointed 'fellows' and other poofery that will be hard to untangle. the proposal does not start with simple. randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Final bylaws proposal
All To address the issue of multiple membership classes: Why Full vs Student? It's safe to claim that individuals working professionally differ substantially from students. This is not just financial. Future work, initiatives, and benefits may require differentiation (e.g. student run committees, events, etc). Life membership was seen as an early cash infusion for NewNOG. This class is not substantially different than Full membership other than lack of recurring dues. It made sense to us to state this in the bylaws. Maybe it doesn't, and if so, this can be corrected after the fact without harm done. Our operations community lacks a method of recognition for the highest contributions to our industry. NewNOG aims to be self sufficient, and for that reason shouldn't rely on other organizations to provide honors or distinction for members of our community. We have included the Fellow class in the bylaws for the same reason as Life membership. The Membership WG had 18 sets of eyes on the process, so given the size we had to run on rough consensus. There were several reviews both internal to the WG and external to the WG which were taken seriously. The first draft of the bylaws sent to nanog-futures two weeks ago received quite a bit of feedback. There were changes made to reflect this input. This was largely removing unnecessary complexity which reduced the text by 50%. The questions to ask now are: * Are the bylaws functional? * Can they be fixed if there are issues? Foreseen or not. I believe the answer to both is 'yes'. -- kris On Oct 2, 2010, at 8:31 PM, Daniel Golding wrote: LOL. It can't work both ways. Either this is a coup put on by a few control freaks or its a mess because a whole bunch of people were involved. Maybe its both! Perhaps someone from the membership group can speak up and let us know how they came to the decisions that they did - I'm working from second-hand knowledge here. However, there were many folks involved. Randy - are you really this bent out of shape over student memberships that may never get utilized? Or maybe someone from the steering committee can step up and comment. That would be refreshing. - Dan On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 9:39 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: It's too late to make changes before the election, so these bylaws will just have to be voted up or down. then down. and don't start with the this is time critical. lack of listening (folk have been complaining on this one for a while) planning is not cause for me to panic. this has been a massively sloppy process and i just can't condone it. randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Final bylaws proposal
To address the Life member issue: I was one of the folks who requested this, coming from a 100% financial/budgetary point of view. The organization needs front loaded revenue to help seed the process. Early expenses include hotel deposits. That money doesn't magically appear from mid air. Folks willing to step up and pay for a lifetime membership are making a good investment in the organization. Early donations have been helpful, but only to a limited point. There will be no status difference, AFAIK - its just a nice way of getting people to make an up front donation, at a time when the net present value of revenue is very high. Its either that, or go all NPR on everyone and start offering totebags and coffee mugs we interrupt the NANOG mailing list to talk about a very important topic - financial support for NANOG! Did you know that the cost of bringing you high quality programming like the NANOG conferences is rising? Our fine programming such as All Things Considered...uh, I mean the Peering BOF...is entirely member supported!. With your $100 donation, you'll get a thermos signed by Ira Glass and your choice of four Car Talk T-shirts! - Dan /Does not think Ira Glass actually signs thermoses //would totally give $100 to get one On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 3:24 PM, kris foster kris.fos...@gmail.com wrote: All To address the issue of multiple membership classes: Why Full vs Student? It's safe to claim that individuals working professionally differ substantially from students. This is not just financial. Future work, initiatives, and benefits may require differentiation (e.g. student run committees, events, etc). Life membership was seen as an early cash infusion for NewNOG. This class is not substantially different than Full membership other than lack of recurring dues. It made sense to us to state this in the bylaws. Maybe it doesn't, and if so, this can be corrected after the fact without harm done. Our operations community lacks a method of recognition for the highest contributions to our industry. NewNOG aims to be self sufficient, and for that reason shouldn't rely on other organizations to provide honors or distinction for members of our community. We have included the Fellow class in the bylaws for the same reason as Life membership. The Membership WG had 18 sets of eyes on the process, so given the size we had to run on rough consensus. There were several reviews both internal to the WG and external to the WG which were taken seriously. The first draft of the bylaws sent to nanog-futures two weeks ago received quite a bit of feedback. There were changes made to reflect this input. This was largely removing unnecessary complexity which reduced the text by 50%. The questions to ask now are: * Are the bylaws functional? * Can they be fixed if there are issues? Foreseen or not. I believe the answer to both is 'yes'. -- kris On Oct 2, 2010, at 8:31 PM, Daniel Golding wrote: LOL. It can't work both ways. Either this is a coup put on by a few control freaks or its a mess because a whole bunch of people were involved. Maybe its both! Perhaps someone from the membership group can speak up and let us know how they came to the decisions that they did - I'm working from second-hand knowledge here. However, there were many folks involved. Randy - are you really this bent out of shape over student memberships that may never get utilized? Or maybe someone from the steering committee can step up and comment. That would be refreshing. - Dan On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 9:39 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: It's too late to make changes before the election, so these bylaws will just have to be voted up or down. then down. and don't start with the this is time critical. lack of listening (folk have been complaining on this one for a while) planning is not cause for me to panic. this has been a massively sloppy process and i just can't condone it. randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Final bylaws proposal
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 12:00 AM, Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote: On 10/1/10 9:46 PM, Randy Bush wrote: i started to read the bylaws draft, hit the 42 flavors of membership, and decided to drop this note and do something more useful with my time. it left out gold and platinum members, 100 meeting members, extra legroom members, and dismembers. why the hell is all this crap needed? you forgot honorary troll, distinguished troll and fellow troll. I would like to know the criteria for such titles. ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Final bylaws proposal
you forgot honorary troll, distinguished troll and fellow troll. I would like to know the criteria for such titles. i have no doubt at all that the membership committee can produce a wonderful set of criteria, job descriptions, obligations, ... randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Final bylaws proposal
On 10/1/10 11:19 PM, Randy Bush wrote: my comment from 9/22 that at most there should be two membership states, members and non still stands. if there is a membership fee, i can see a student discount. Not everyone on the membership working group agreed with all the membership classifications. I, for one, see no need for a student classification. In fact, I still see no value in student membership for governance of NewNOG, which is all membership is for at this point. Students already get a discount on the price of conferences, so I am told. I can see value to the students to attend the conferences, as it is a learning experience for them, just like the rest of us. I don't see any value to NANOG, though, as most students lack any experience in inter-networking, or common sense, for that matter. The bylaws could use quite a bit of improvement, and should have had some proofreading done before being put to a vote, as the structure is less than consistent, but... At this point, I do not see any more changes going into the bylaws before the election. My suggestion would be to vote to ratify the bylaws and the transition, and then at the next annual election, we can amend the bylaws and fix what needs to be fixed. My comments are in no way meant to lessen the efforts of the individuals involved. They put in a lot of hard work for very little recognition and even less personal benefit. There was very little time to pull this together, and most have a paying job that demands their time and attention. It is more a miracle that we have anything to vote on at all. -Sean ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Final bylaws proposal
LOL. It can't work both ways. Either this is a coup put on by a few control freaks or its a mess because a whole bunch of people were involved. Maybe its both! Perhaps someone from the membership group can speak up and let us know how they came to the decisions that they did - I'm working from second-hand knowledge here. However, there were many folks involved. Randy - are you really this bent out of shape over student memberships that may never get utilized? Or maybe someone from the steering committee can step up and comment. That would be refreshing. - Dan On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 9:39 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: It's too late to make changes before the election, so these bylaws will just have to be voted up or down. then down. and don't start with the this is time critical. lack of listening (folk have been complaining on this one for a while) planning is not cause for me to panic. this has been a massively sloppy process and i just can't condone it. randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Final bylaws proposal
On 10/2/10 7:39 PM, Randy Bush wrote: this has been a massively sloppy process and i just can't condone it. It is not from having a lack of people step up and try to help. From an insiders point of view from the membership wg, these were plenty of people that volunteered to help, and a few us us actually participated, and offered opinions and options. Some even went as far as to draft proposed bylaws amendments to generate additional discussion. The problem fell somewhere between everyone being busy, and those that were writing the new bylaws having ideas of their own. Again, I am not saying that people did not try to make things work, or put forth effort of have earnest intentions. There were quite a few people that did quite a bit of work. Maybe what this really lacks for many, is a real community effort. I don't know that it could be done any better, and I don't know that we have a whole lot of options. What I do know if that it mostly doesn't matter in the long run. 99% of those that deal with NANOG are not going to care about NewNOG. And, from my personal viewpoint, while I care a great amount about it, I really have not been a participant for a few years in the conference, and even more for the mail mailing list. I hope it all works out, and those that are involved feel a sense of accomplishment. I doubt there will be any external reward for the hard work. -Sean ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Final bylaws proposal
On 10/2/10 9:47 PM, Randy Bush wrote: Randy - are you really this bent out of shape over student memberships that may never get utilized? not really. it's the puffery of fellows, lifers, ... Current schedule of fees is $100 for members, and $1000 for life, or 10 years worth of fees. As far as fellows and students... I am not sure who was actually for this in the in the membership WG. I know I kept asking what the value was that we needed to discount the membership fees. However, what is in there is in there for some reason. I know that only one member of the membership wg got full knowledge of all the aspects of this. The chair worked with the other wgs to deal with all the nuts and bolts. -Sean ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Final bylaws proposal
Maybe I am just picking nits, but why do we have the program committee definitions spread between section 9 (9.1) and section 10 (10.3.1 and 10.3.2)? Shouldn't it all be within 9.1, along with all the other committees? I am also concerned with the consistency of the outline, but that IS just picking nits. -Sean On 10/1/10 3:47 PM, Steve Gibbard wrote: The final bylaws that will be voted on in next week's election have been posted on the Newnog website. They are available for review at: http://www.newnog.org/docs/newnog-bylaws.pdf There are a couple changes from the previous draft. Due to time constraints, these changes are mine, not the Governance Working Group's. Sorry for the lack of community involvement. The previous draft was missing the section defining the corporate officer positions (except for a paragraph on the Executive Director). I moved the section over almost verbatum from the initial bylaws that Newnog's attorney had prepared. The only change I made was to make the Executive Director section match what the Governance Working Group had agreed on. The other change was a minor revision to the Student Membership section, which was a last minute request by the Membership Working Group. It allows somebody to go from being a student member to a regular member by becoming employed in the industry. -Steve ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Final bylaws proposal
i started to read the bylaws draft, hit the 42 flavors of membership, and decided to drop this note and do something more useful with my time. it left out gold and platinum members, 100 meeting members, extra legroom members, and dismembers. why the hell is all this crap needed? randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Final bylaws proposal
On 10/1/10 9:46 PM, Randy Bush wrote: i started to read the bylaws draft, hit the 42 flavors of membership, and decided to drop this note and do something more useful with my time. it left out gold and platinum members, 100 meeting members, extra legroom members, and dismembers. why the hell is all this crap needed? you forgot honorary troll, distinguished troll and fellow troll. my comment from 9/22 that at most there should be two membership states, members and non still stands. randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Final bylaws proposal
you forgot honorary troll, distinguished troll and fellow troll. my only excuse is tough night in the rack. and zita-san says redheads should get a class by themselves (sorry, ren). my comment from 9/22 that at most there should be two membership states, members and non still stands. iff there is a membership fee, i can see a student discount. randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Final bylaws proposal
On 10/1/10 10:19 PM, Randy Bush wrote: you forgot honorary troll, distinguished troll and fellow troll. my only excuse is tough night in the rack. and zita-san says redheads should get a class by themselves (sorry, ren). my comment from 9/22 that at most there should be two membership states, members and non still stands. iff there is a membership fee, i can see a student discount. which is a question of fee schedule rather than status. I don't have a safeway club card, they still take my money. randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
