Re: [Nanog-futures] Membership, was Transition update

[Adrian Chadd]

On Sat, Jun 12, 2010, Adrian Chadd wrote:

> Hypothetically speaking, if I were currently engaged in this business,
> I'd pay. Both for the ability to ask questions and the ability to be asked
> questions by a sensible group of people with similar goals (ie, non-trolling)
> in mind[1].

And to follow up on my follow-up - too often have I seen people comment on
the apparently occasional lack of clue that shows up, after you filter out
the noisy stuff. Another possibility is nanog-help, where netadmins -can- ask
dumb questions and get some community feedback.

I also believe having a "clue distilled" service available to mailing list
members would be really helpful. Sometimes forums get turned into that - ie,
helpful posts get voted up (by clueful people who know what they're doing);
then you can craft forum queries to pull out questions that have been answered
highly. That could be another paid service. I've had quite positive feedback
from when I occasionally manually do this from the nanog-ml contents.

(another) 2c,


Adrian


___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Membership, was Transition update

[Adrian Chadd]

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010, Martin Hannigan wrote:

> Who is going to pay to join a mailing list?

If there's a lively and active nanog-jobs@ list? Or a nanog-but-for-really-
operational-only stuff, with chat silently redirected to nanog-chat by
active moderation? etc, etc.

Hypothetically speaking, if I were currently engaged in this business,
I'd pay. Both for the ability to ask questions and the ability to be asked
questions by a sensible group of people with similar goals (ie, non-trolling)
in mind[1].




Adrian

[1] But keep Paul Wall. Humour can be a helpful perspective-inducing device.


___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Membership, was Transition update

[Daniel Golding]

Is this when I'm supposed to admit that  Wilcox was right and I was  
wrong? How much is Wilcox paying you, Gibbard?!

No!

Ok, I admit it - Steve Wilcox was right and I was wrong :)

Daniel Golding


On Jun 11, 2010, at 5:59 PM, Steve Gibbard  wrote:

> I went looking through old e-mails to see if I could figure out  
> where the
> current membership system came from.  The earliest e-mail I could find
> outlining it was this:
>
>
>
> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 19:12:26 -0500
> From: Daniel Golding 
> To: Stephen J. Wilcox ,
> "Hannigan, Martin" 
> Cc: nanog-ref...@nac.net
> Subject: Re: [nanog-reform] Draft List reform plan
>
>
> It doesn't have to be one person. Here's a possibility...
>
> - An elected NANOG committee. Merit would have a representative on  
> this
> committee
>
> - They appoint a group of FAQ maintainers/list admins. Preferably they
> would have little to do, except for unsubscribing jabbering mail  
> clients
> and what not. This is a group of volunteers. One member of the elected
> committee should be the lead.
>
> - They appoint a program committee to review presentations. This is a
> group of volunteers. One member of the elected committee should be
> coordinating this.
>
> Other members of the elected committee could work with hosts, "face"  
> the
> conference, help steer the agenda. Merit would work with this group,
> handling registration, signage, room setup.
>
> I suggest an elected committee of 5-7 with staggered two or three year
> terms. Electorate would be anyone who attended a NANOG meeting in  
> the last
> year (3 meetings).
>
> - Dan
>
>
>
> This looks looks a lot like what we ended up with.
>
>
> Steve Wilcox then wrote:
>
> "On a related note, I was just thinking.. someone mentioned before an
> issue with committee elections in that nanog doesnt have members as  
> such.
> There is a possible solution.. an annual membership subscription,  
> there
> may be other uses to being a nanog member but in this context i'm  
> thinking
> it would give you an electorate. Of course we dont want to increase
> overall costs so soemthing like a $300 annual fee would be given  
> back to
> you as eg $450 of discounts to nanog meets (ie a $50 meeting discount
> assuming 3 meetings/ann as an incentive)."
>
>
> And Dan replied:
>
> "Here's the issue with an annual membership subscription - the only
> benefit would be a vote. The result would be a few purchased votes  
> and a
> non-representative Steering Committee. And its not like Merit needs  
> more
> money :)"
>
>
> There was then a lot of discussion about how to keep the voting  
> process
> from being hijacked by organizations sending too many people to the  
> NANOG
> meetings.  Dan suggested that the situation could be prevented by a  
> secret
> ballot, such that employers wouldn't be able to check on how their
> employees voted.  There were a bunch of proposals to prevent  
> employees of
> equipment vendors from voting, to keep the vendors from taking over  
> NANOG.
> Fortunately, that idea didn't go anywhere.  Dan appears to have cut  
> that
> discussion off with this:
>
>
> Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 19:03:56 -0500
> From: Daniel Golding 
> To: Adam Rothschild , Steve Gibbard
> 
> Cc: nanog-ref...@nac.net
> Subject: Re: [nanog-reform] Issues to address
>
>
> The easiest way to define the electorate is this:
>
> Any person who has attended at least one NANOG conference in the last
> calendar year is entitled to vote for steering committee members.
>
> - Dan
>
>
> That appears to have settled the issue.
>
>
>
> Skipping forward to now, I kind of like the idea of having a  
> professional
> organization with a more formalized membership.  At the same time, the
> current system seems to have worked remarkably well, and I'm not  
> sure how
> much sense it makes to mess with it.
>
> -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] Membership, was Transition update

[Steve Gibbard]

I went looking through old e-mails to see if I could figure out where the 
current membership system came from.  The earliest e-mail I could find 
outlining it was this:



Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 19:12:26 -0500
From: Daniel Golding 
To: Stephen J. Wilcox ,
 "Hannigan, Martin" 
Cc: nanog-ref...@nac.net
Subject: Re: [nanog-reform] Draft List reform plan


It doesn't have to be one person. Here's a possibility...

- An elected NANOG committee. Merit would have a representative on this
committee

- They appoint a group of FAQ maintainers/list admins. Preferably they 
would have little to do, except for unsubscribing jabbering mail clients 
and what not. This is a group of volunteers. One member of the elected 
committee should be the lead.

- They appoint a program committee to review presentations. This is a 
group of volunteers. One member of the elected committee should be 
coordinating this.

Other members of the elected committee could work with hosts, "face" the
conference, help steer the agenda. Merit would work with this group,
handling registration, signage, room setup.

I suggest an elected committee of 5-7 with staggered two or three year
terms. Electorate would be anyone who attended a NANOG meeting in the last
year (3 meetings).

- Dan



This looks looks a lot like what we ended up with.


Steve Wilcox then wrote:

"On a related note, I was just thinking.. someone mentioned before an 
issue with committee elections in that nanog doesnt have members as such. 
There is a possible solution.. an annual membership subscription, there 
may be other uses to being a nanog member but in this context i'm thinking 
it would give you an electorate. Of course we dont want to increase 
overall costs so soemthing like a $300 annual fee would be given back to 
you as eg $450 of discounts to nanog meets (ie a $50 meeting discount 
assuming 3 meetings/ann as an incentive)."


And Dan replied:

"Here's the issue with an annual membership subscription - the only 
benefit would be a vote. The result would be a few purchased votes and a 
non-representative Steering Committee. And its not like Merit needs more 
money :)"


There was then a lot of discussion about how to keep the voting process 
from being hijacked by organizations sending too many people to the NANOG 
meetings.  Dan suggested that the situation could be prevented by a secret 
ballot, such that employers wouldn't be able to check on how their 
employees voted.  There were a bunch of proposals to prevent employees of 
equipment vendors from voting, to keep the vendors from taking over NANOG. 
Fortunately, that idea didn't go anywhere.  Dan appears to have cut that 
discussion off with this:


Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 19:03:56 -0500
From: Daniel Golding 
To: Adam Rothschild , Steve Gibbard 

Cc: nanog-ref...@nac.net
Subject: Re: [nanog-reform] Issues to address


The easiest way to define the electorate is this:

Any person who has attended at least one NANOG conference in the last
calendar year is entitled to vote for steering committee members.

- Dan


That appears to have settled the issue.



Skipping forward to now, I kind of like the idea of having a professional 
organization with a more formalized membership.  At the same time, the 
current system seems to have worked remarkably well, and I'm not sure how 
much sense it makes to mess with it.

-Steve

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Membership, was Transition update

[Randy Bush]

> Who is going to pay to join a mailing list?

if i understand the social contract and the business plan, i am happy to
pay for foux-nog membership.  i pay acm membership, i get some acm
publications, and i then pay to go to acm meetings.  nothing new here.

randy

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Membership, was Transition update

[Sean Figgins]

kris foster wrote:

> If Dorian (and Sean) are not talking about governance, then I agree. 
 > The problem on the community's plate right now is governance, and
> discussion of membership in NewNOG, Inc. needs to happen.

Um...  I was talking about membership as a way to determine who is 
interested in the operation aspects of NewNOG and those that have an 
interest in the operations of NANOG activites by the NewNOG entity.  As 
such, paid membership is required to have voting rights, and a say in 
how things are done.  This is not to say that the membership would be 
closed to outside thought, just that there is a cost to play.  Sort of 
like shareholders of any corporation.  If you own shares (which I will 
assume were purchased), then you have a voting right.

But, I am still interested in membership also having the benefits of 
being a member of a professional organization.  By being a member, not 
only do you have voting rights, but you also can show others that you 
have an interest in the activities promoted by the organization.  That 
is, in this case, operations of networks in North America.  Of course, 
this should not be limited to those residing in North America, if they wish.

>> IOPS had a per organization fee based membership and it died after
>> doing very little.  The open membership model and free access to
>> documents of IETF and NANOG up to now has worked very well IMHO and
>> should be continued if at all possible.
> 
> I would be shocked to find anyone in the community that wants to change 
 > the openness that we currently enjoy.

That would be unthinkable.  NANOG should continue to operate the way it 
currently does.  Free information and mailing lists, charge for 
attendance to the conferences.  This way participation in the community 
is open to all, regardless of any interest in the governance of the 
corporate entity.

  -Sean


___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Membership, was Transition update

[Andy Davidson]

On 11 Jun 2010, at 18:28, Martin Hannigan wrote:

> Who is going to pay to join a mailing list? 

I hope that nobody is expected to or even asked to, membership is something 
that individuals/companies can do to support the organisation, if they value 
it.  (Which means it can't be expensive, either..)

The list and meetings should continue to open to non-members of the 
organisation.  In my opinion. :-)

Andy
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Membership, was Transition update

[Sean Figgins]

Jay Hennigan wrote:

> If the membership fee were relatively low and a lifetime or long-term
> (like five year) it could be relatively painless.  Membership would give
> voting rights as well as the mailing list.
> 
> Say $50 lifetime membership and increase the meeting cost by $50 for
> non-members or $50 for five years and increase the meeting cost by $10
> for non-members.

I was thinking something like $35 or $50 a year, with a lifetime 
membership option as well...  Something along the lines of 10 or 15 
years of individual yearly fees.

Better yet, since the org is going to have 501c3 status, make it a 
yearly charitable contribution, so the dues could be written off your taxes.

I used to belong to a membership community where after paying dues for 
20 year, you automatically gained lifetime status.  I do not remember if 
there was an option to pay it all up front.  Unfortunately, I was signed 
up at birth, but my father did not keep up on the dues, so I lost my 
membership.

If you could use it as a professional association, as has been 
suggested, then it is definitely worth a few PB&J sandwiches for lunch 
instead of eating out a year to pay for.  Set up an autopay option, and 
it wouldn't even be noticed.

> I am assuming (and would recommend) that members would be humans and not
> companies.

That should definitely be the case.  The way I see it, NANOG is about 
people that operate/design/etc the networks and not the companies that 
do.  If it were about companies, we'd see a lot more VPs and a lot less 
engineers, and the meetings would have much less value.

  -Sean


___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Membership, was Transition update

[kris foster]

On Jun 11, 2010, at 10:36 AM, Curtis Villamizar wrote:

> 
> In message 
> kris foster writes:
>> 
>> On Jun 11, 2010, at 9:05 AM, Dorian Kim wrote:
>> 
>>> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 09:55:13AM -0600, Sean Figgins wrote:
 I believe that paid membership is the only way to actually have a real, 
 valid membership.  Otherwise, it is just a crap shoot.  The way it 
 currently is, we could have "members" that have no interest in NANOG as 
 a organization.
>>> 
>>> There are counter examples to this, e.g. IETF.
>> 
>> A little different, they roll up into ISOC.
>> 
>> Kris
> 
> Dorian's comment was regarding the membership model not the governance
> model.  Participation in IETF standards process has nothing to do with
> ISOC.  IEEE and ITU have a fee based membership model and fee based
> access to the outcome of their processes (standards, recommendations).

If Dorian (and Sean) are not talking about governance, then I agree. The 
problem on the community's plate right now is governance, and discussion of 
membership in NewNOG, Inc. needs to happen.

> IOPS had a per organization fee based membership and it died after
> doing very little.  The open membership model and free access to
> documents of IETF and NANOG up to now has worked very well IMHO and
> should be continued if at all possible.

I would be shocked to find anyone in the community that wants to change the 
openness that we currently enjoy.

Kris
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Membership, was Transition update

[Shrdlu]

Martin Hannigan wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Sean Figgins  > wrote:

> [ clip ]

> I believe that paid membership is the only way to actually have a real,
> valid membership.  Otherwise, it is just a crap shoot.  The way it
> currently is, we could have "members" that have no interest in NANOG as
> a organization.

> Who is going to pay to join a mailing list?

I would suggest that membership, like many other organizations, might 
include additional privileges, such as voting, or conference discounts, 
and not include the mailing list. Many other groups operate in just that 
way, and it seems to work fine for them. That's really almost the 
situation we have now, except that the cost to have voting privileges is 
vaguely masked.

I'd love to just pay money to join, without having to travel any where, 
or attend meetings. I traveled enough while I worked. Now that I'm 
retired, I go to great lengths to avoid it.

-- 
Math *is* thinking.
It's dance for the brain.
It is a meta-skill.
Whiskey T. Foxtrot

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Membership, was Transition update

[Jay Hennigan]

On 6/11/10 10:28 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote:

> Who is going to pay to join a mailing list?

If the membership fee were relatively low and a lifetime or long-term
(like five year) it could be relatively painless.  Membership would give
voting rights as well as the mailing list.

Say $50 lifetime membership and increase the meeting cost by $50 for
non-members or $50 for five years and increase the meeting cost by $10
for non-members.

I am assuming (and would recommend) that members would be humans and not
companies.

--
Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - j...@impulse.net
Impulse Internet Service  -  http://www.impulse.net/
Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Membership, was Transition update

[Chris Caputo]

On Fri, 11 Jun 2010, Sean Figgins wrote:
> Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't 501c status take about 18 months 
> to get?

One data point: the SIX's 501(c)(6) application was mailed on 7/3/2008 and 
was approved by the IRS on 9/11/2008, so it took just a little over 2 
months.

A 501(c)(3) may take more time since it involves charitable deductions and 
is likely to be the most scrutinized type of 501(c), but the initial form 
letter we received from the IRS appeared to suggest that any 501(c) 
application would take about 60 days to be reviewed, unless additional 
documentation/justification gets requested.

Chris

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Membership, was Transition update

[Martin Hannigan]

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Sean Figgins  wrote:

[ clip ]


>
>
> I believe that paid membership is the only way to actually have a real,
> valid membership.  Otherwise, it is just a crap shoot.  The way it
> currently is, we could have "members" that have no interest in NANOG as
> a organization.
>
>
Who is going to pay to join a mailing list?


Best,

-M<
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Membership, was Transition update

[kris foster]

On Jun 11, 2010, at 9:05 AM, Dorian Kim wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 09:55:13AM -0600, Sean Figgins wrote:
>> I believe that paid membership is the only way to actually have a real, 
>> valid membership.  Otherwise, it is just a crap shoot.  The way it 
>> currently is, we could have "members" that have no interest in NANOG as 
>> a organization.
> 
> There are counter examples to this, e.g. IETF.

A little different, they roll up into ISOC.

Kris

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Membership, was Transition update

[Dorian Kim]

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 09:55:13AM -0600, Sean Figgins wrote:
> I believe that paid membership is the only way to actually have a real, 
> valid membership.  Otherwise, it is just a crap shoot.  The way it 
> currently is, we could have "members" that have no interest in NANOG as 
> a organization.

There are counter examples to this, e.g. IETF.

-dorian

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Membership, was Transition update

[Sean Figgins]

Hank Kilmer wrote:

> According to the website, the board officially ratified the bylaws.  So
> there are "real" bylaws.  The issue here is that there is a great deal
> of work setting up a 501c3 organization to run NANOG and there are goals
> that wish to be met.  All this means is that there are changes
> attempting to be made.  Observers of this process only get to see pieces
> of the work and in lieu of facts, are left to guess at the rest.
> Without facts, all this conversation is doing is spinning people up.

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't 501c status take about 18 months 
to get?  I work with another organization sometimes that is attempting 
to file all the paperwork for this, and that was the time line I was 
told.  I have nothing to do whit the filing, so I am not sure where 
those time lines came from.

I believe that paid membership is the only way to actually have a real, 
valid membership.  Otherwise, it is just a crap shoot.  The way it 
currently is, we could have "members" that have no interest in NANOG as 
a organization.

  -Sean

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Membership, was Transition update

[Hank Kilmer]

Dan,

According to the website, the board officially ratified the bylaws.  So
there are "real" bylaws.  The issue here is that there is a great deal
of work setting up a 501c3 organization to run NANOG and there are goals
that wish to be met.  All this means is that there are changes
attempting to be made.  Observers of this process only get to see pieces
of the work and in lieu of facts, are left to guess at the rest.
Without facts, all this conversation is doing is spinning people up.

I think I'm going to procmail any email that has "I think" in it.

-Hank

On 6/11/10 7:14 AM, Daniel Golding wrote:
> John,
> 
> Everything up there is a placeholder - there are no "real" bylaws yet. I
> think you are putting the cart before the horse. I'm hoping that the
> previous charter-editor committee steps up and helps put together a new
> set of bylaws, congruent (but not identical) to the existing charter. I
> know that David Barak and Steve Gibbard have volunteered to help, as have I.
> 
> I think we'll see the same voting requirements in place for now, until
> the October meeting, which seems to be the Rubicon for the new
> organization - that's when an up/down vote would be. The proposals (and
> thats all they are so far) for voting membership don't mean that you
> would need to be a paid voting member to attend NANOG conferences, it
> would only provide a discount on meeting attendance to offset the annual
> membership cost. So far, the idea of paid membership has been received
> positively - maybe we'll get more feedback at the community meeting.
> Hope to see you there.
> 
> - Dan
> 
> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 9:36 PM, John Springer  > wrote:
> 
> Am I correct in noticing that as of "__11_day of May 2010" the
> requirement
> of written application and paid membership dues has been
> instantiated for
> newnog?
> 
> http://www.newnog.org/docs/consent-full.pdf
> 
> I advocate that the previous attendance requirements for voting continue
> to be sufficient for membership (and voting rights) and that anyone
> presently qualified to vote under such terms be permitted to continue to
> qualify that way for $some_lengthy_period, if they wish. A sufficient
> rationale for me would be that to do otherwise would impose a monetary
> penalty, however modest, on those who attend meetings.
> 
> Will the upcoming NANOG Community Meeting constitute a proper venue to
> vote on such an amendment to the bylaws? Or would the existing Board of
> Directors be so kind as to vote by a 2/3rds majority to do the same? :)
> 
> I volunteer to serve on the Bylaws Committee.
> 
> John Springer
> 
> ___
> 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] Membership, was Transition update

[Daniel Golding]

John,

Everything up there is a placeholder - there are no "real" bylaws yet. I
think you are putting the cart before the horse. I'm hoping that the
previous charter-editor committee steps up and helps put together a new set
of bylaws, congruent (but not identical) to the existing charter. I know
that David Barak and Steve Gibbard have volunteered to help, as have I.

I think we'll see the same voting requirements in place for now, until the
October meeting, which seems to be the Rubicon for the new organization -
that's when an up/down vote would be. The proposals (and thats all they are
so far) for voting membership don't mean that you would need to be a paid
voting member to attend NANOG conferences, it would only provide a discount
on meeting attendance to offset the annual membership cost. So far, the idea
of paid membership has been received positively - maybe we'll get more
feedback at the community meeting. Hope to see you there.

- Dan

On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 9:36 PM, John Springer wrote:

> Am I correct in noticing that as of "__11_day of May 2010" the requirement
> of written application and paid membership dues has been instantiated for
> newnog?
>
> http://www.newnog.org/docs/consent-full.pdf
>
> I advocate that the previous attendance requirements for voting continue
> to be sufficient for membership (and voting rights) and that anyone
> presently qualified to vote under such terms be permitted to continue to
> qualify that way for $some_lengthy_period, if they wish. A sufficient
> rationale for me would be that to do otherwise would impose a monetary
> penalty, however modest, on those who attend meetings.
>
> Will the upcoming NANOG Community Meeting constitute a proper venue to
> vote on such an amendment to the bylaws? Or would the existing Board of
> Directors be so kind as to vote by a 2/3rds majority to do the same? :)
>
> I volunteer to serve on the Bylaws Committee.
>
> John Springer
>
> ___
> 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] Membership, was Transition update

[John Springer]

Am I correct in noticing that as of "__11_day of May 2010" the requirement 
of written application and paid membership dues has been instantiated for 
newnog?

http://www.newnog.org/docs/consent-full.pdf

I advocate that the previous attendance requirements for voting continue 
to be sufficient for membership (and voting rights) and that anyone 
presently qualified to vote under such terms be permitted to continue to 
qualify that way for $some_lengthy_period, if they wish. A sufficient 
rationale for me would be that to do otherwise would impose a monetary 
penalty, however modest, on those who attend meetings.

Will the upcoming NANOG Community Meeting constitute a proper venue to 
vote on such an amendment to the bylaws? Or would the existing Board of 
Directors be so kind as to vote by a 2/3rds majority to do the same? :)

I volunteer to serve on the Bylaws Committee.

John Springer

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures