On 10/27/10 1:21 PM, Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote:
> +1 I don't think we have the resources as a volunteer/community-led
> organization to vet every new member, a la the IEEE. The community is
> completely open now and it's been successful. I don't see why we
> wouldn't have that same inclusiv
And doing so, (strongly encouraging them) has nothing to do with a membership
class called student. In fact it doesn't have anything to do with membership,
it has to do with exposure, attendance and validation. Any number of us who
became involved with NANOG, as students did so because we had s
> We have the opportunity here to position NANOG as a professional
> organization of network operators.
$deity save us from hubris. let's see the new org deliver a year or two
of meetings, the mailing lists, ... on sound finanical footing and
without all this damned drma.
randy
My problem with this line of thinking is that I don't want to merely
"not prevent or discourage" students from joining. I want to strongly
encourage them to. They're not the same thing.
-Steve
On Oct 29, 2010, at 2:23 PM, Jay Hennigan wrote:
> On 10/29/10 2:02 PM, Steve Gibbard wrote:
>
On 10/29/10 3:02 PM, Steve Gibbard wrote:
> I hear a lot of grousing, at NANOG meetings and elsewhere, about the quality
> of network engineering education -- about academic researchers who are doing
> network research without any idea what the problems that need solving are,
> and about studen
On 10/29/10 2:02 PM, Steve Gibbard wrote:
> On Oct 27, 2010, at 5:32 PM, Joe Provo wrote:
>
>>> 2) I'm not sure how happy I am to see student memberships gone. I like
>>> the idea that a student could pay a reduced fee to be a member, yes I do
>>> realize that the student can still attend the m
On Oct 27, 2010, at 5:32 PM, Joe Provo wrote:
>> 2) I'm not sure how happy I am to see student memberships gone. I like
>> the idea that a student could pay a reduced fee to be a member, yes I do
>> realize that the student can still attend the meeting without membership.
>
> I'll be more fir
>> I suspect the board will set some kind of a discount for students.
>> Personally, I would support a very large discount for full time
>> students.
>
>agreed
>
It still escapes me as to why a student should get any financial
stimulus to be a member of an organization that will help him/her with
On 10/27/10 10:36 PM, Chris Malayter wrote:
> I think we should be trying to find ways to be more INCLUSIVE of other
> classes, aka retired network professionals, students, etc... then trying to
> set the flat fee and move right along.
I already indicated that I would be willing to support disco
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 l
Inline
On Wed, 27 Oct 2010, Sean Figgins wrote:
> On 10/27/10 3:22 PM, John Springer wrote:
> I don't believe the idea of paid membership is up for discussion.
Sorry, not to be dense, but what? I believe it is all up for discussion.
Or is that code for shut up?
> In fact, the idea of membershi
On 10/27/10 12:02 PM, Daniel Golding wrote:
> That being said, I'm also a bit disappointed that the specific student
> membership didn't survive. I think the educational mission is extremely
> important from both an altruistic and a business point of view (business
> == our real businesses, not NA
> I suspect the board will set some kind of a discount for students.
> Personally, I would support a very large discount for full time
> students.
agreed
> That being said, I'm also a bit disappointed that the specific student
> membership didn't survive.
given the above, who cares?
> I think t
On 10/27/10 6:44 PM, Joe Provo wrote:
> If there isn't vetting, why does the board approve membership? No
> other nonprofit [advocacy, professional, charity] to which I either
> belong or contribute has this kind of barrier to taking my money.
The board does not need to vote if we don't want it.
On 10/27/10 6:32 PM, Joe Provo wrote:
>> When we were discussing the fee structure in August and September, I
>> used this argument, and nobody could offer me a convincing counter
>> argument. My argument was... If we are offering a "fellow" membership
>> for someone that has contributed a extrao
On 10/27/10 5:41 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
> I don't understand "probably, and I don't understand "loose enough".
You don't understand English? That's ok, I don't understand most languages.
> What is the rationale for trying to restrict membership to those who
> qualify as network engineers? To seek
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 05:39:56PM -0700, Jay Hennigan wrote:
[snip]
> There isn't a test, investigation, or vetting. The member decides if
> they have an interest and understands the reason for membership.
If there isn't vetting, why does the board approve membership? No
other nonprofit [advocac
On 10/27/10 3:34 PM, Daniel Golding wrote:
> See, there's your logical fallacy - you are expecting students to
> prioritize NANOG over beer :)
Until they discover "Beer AND Gear"!
--
Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - j...@impulse.net
Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impuls
On 10/27/10 1:57 PM, Lynda wrote:
> Okay, here's a test. If I'm willing to pay the fee, may I join? I am
> asking if I'd be permitted to under the current definition. I don't
> fancy orchids much, but I have my own Cisco router.
Sure. You don't even need to use the router for anything other th
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 05:21:29PM -0700, kris foster wrote:
>
> On Oct 27, 2010, at 4:41 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
>
> > [snip]
> > This document ought to contain the bare minimum number of words
> > required to specify accurately what the situation is. It should not
> > have extra clauses that peopl
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 02:07:03PM -0600, Sean Figgins wrote:
> On 10/27/10 1:02 PM, Daniel Golding wrote:
> >
> > I suspect the board will set some kind of a discount for students.
> > Personally, I would support a very large discount for full time students.
> >
> > That being said, I'm also a bit
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 12:36:25PM -0500, Chris Malayter wrote:
[snip]
> Two issues I have,
>
> 1) The ED has to be a member in good standing? So he has to pay to be a
> member to keep his job? :)
I've got no problem with people interested in governance having to be
members.
> 2) I'm not sure
On Oct 27, 2010, at 4:41 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
> [snip]
> This document ought to contain the bare minimum number of words required to
> specify accurately what the situation is. It should not have extra clauses
> that people shouldn't worry about because they don't really mean anything. If
> th
What follows is one of the best comments in this whole discussion.
On Oct 27, 2010, at 7:41 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
> This document ought to contain the bare minimum number of words required to
> specify accurately what the situation is. It should not have extra clauses
> that people shouldn't wor
On 2010-10-27, at 17:43, Sean Figgins wrote:
> Probably. 4.1 is loose enough that those that want to join may join,
> however I believe it is a good definition.
I don't understand "probably, and I don't understand "loose enough".
What is the rationale for trying to restrict membership to thos
On 10/27/10 3:53 PM, kris foster wrote:
> "The mission *includes* education and outreach to the academic community" is
> not the same as "The mission is education and outreach to the academic
> community".
>>> The mission includes education and outreach to the academic community.
>>> If students
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Sean Figgins wrote:
> On 10/27/10 1:02 PM, Daniel Golding wrote:
> >
> > I suspect the board will set some kind of a discount for students.
> > Personally, I would support a very large discount for full time students.
> >
> > That being said, I'm also a bit disapp
On 10/27/10 3:22 PM, John Springer wrote:
> So while we are discussing what paid membership should be, may we not
> discuss whether or not we should have paid membership at all? From my
> perspective, we seem to be permanently accepting an insufficiently
> good idea along with a lot of really go
"The mission *includes* education and outreach to the academic community" is
not the same as "The mission is education and outreach to the academic
community".
On Oct 27, 2010, at 2:36 PM, Sean Figgins wrote:
> On 10/27/10 2:50 PM, kris foster wrote:
>> The mission includes education and outre
On Oct 27, 2010, at 1:39 PM, kris foster wrote:
> I see things like this as a fail safe, and not a requirement that the board
> consider each individual individually.
I agree with Kris. While I wish that we could simply say that there are
no formal qualifications for membership, I think the la
On 10/27/10 2:57 PM, Lynda wrote:
> On 10/27/2010 1:14 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
>>
>> On 2010-10-27, at 15:43, Sean Figgins wrote:
>>
>>> If someone leaves the network operations community for an extended
>>> period of time, say over a year, I am not sure why they would wish to
>>> remain a member of N
On 10/27/10 2:50 PM, kris foster wrote:
> The mission includes education and outreach to the academic community.
> If students are not implied, then maybe we're working on different
> definitions of some of these words.
> 3. Mission
> The purpose of NewNOG is to provide forums in the North Americ
Inline.
On Wed, 27 Oct 2010, Joe Abley wrote:
>
> On 2010-10-27, at 15:43, Sean Figgins wrote:
>> If someone leaves the network operations community for an extended
>> period of time, say over a year, I am not sure why they would wish to
>> remain a member of NewNOG and pay the fee.
>
> If they di
On Oct 27, 2010, at 2:04 PM, Brian Johnson wrote:
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: kris foster [mailto:kris.fos...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 3:50 PM
>> To: Sean Figgins
>> Cc: nanog-futures@nanog.org
>> Subject: Re:
>-Original Message-
>From: kris foster [mailto:kris.fos...@gmail.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 3:50 PM
>To: Sean Figgins
>Cc: nanog-futures@nanog.org
>Subject: Re: [Nanog-futures] New Membership-WG Draft
>
>
>On Oct 27, 2010, at 1:07 PM, Sean Figgins w
On 10/27/2010 1:14 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
>
> On 2010-10-27, at 15:43, Sean Figgins wrote:
>
>> If someone leaves the network operations community for an extended
>> period of time, say over a year, I am not sure why they would wish to
>> remain a member of NewNOG and pay the fee.
> If they did wish
On Oct 27, 2010, at 1:07 PM, Sean Figgins wrote:
> On 10/27/10 1:02 PM, Daniel Golding wrote:
>>
>> I suspect the board will set some kind of a discount for students.
>> Personally, I would support a very large discount for full time students.
>>
>> That being said, I'm also a bit disappointed
On Oct 27, 2010, at 1:21 PM, Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Joe Abley [mailto:jab...@hopcount.ca]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 1:15 PM
>> To: Sean Figgins
>> Cc: nanog-futures@nanog.org
>> Subject: Re: [Na
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Abley [mailto:jab...@hopcount.ca]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 1:15 PM
> To: Sean Figgins
> Cc: nanog-futures@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: [Nanog-futures] New Membership-WG Draft
>
>
> On 2010-10-27, at 15:43, Sean Figgi
On 2010-10-27, at 15:43, Sean Figgins wrote:
> If someone leaves the network operations community for an extended
> period of time, say over a year, I am not sure why they would wish to
> remain a member of NewNOG and pay the fee.
If they did wish to remain a member of NewNOG, however, I'm not
On 10/27/10 1:02 PM, Daniel Golding wrote:
>
> I suspect the board will set some kind of a discount for students.
> Personally, I would support a very large discount for full time students.
>
> That being said, I'm also a bit disappointed that the specific student
> membership didn't survive. I thi
It is possible to differentiate things like pricing outside of the bylaws. I
think everyone is mostly in agreement that the bylaws isn't the place for
dictating fees, but is the right place for dictating how fees can be set.
Dan's point on student classes and the educational mission of this orga
On 10/27/10 1:22 PM, Simon Lyall wrote:
> 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 p
Suggestion: Strike "if retired".
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Simon Lyall wrote:
> 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
>
You can have student pricing and members without needing a separate
class of membership. Education is useful even for existing network
engineers.
Leslie
On 10/27/10 12:02 PM, Daniel Golding wrote:
>
> I suspect the board will set some kind of a discount for students.
> Personally, I would supp
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.
How does this affect people who lose the
I suspect the board will set some kind of a discount for students.
Personally, I would support a very large discount for full time students.
That being said, I'm also a bit disappointed that the specific student
membership didn't survive. I think the educational mission is extremely
important from
Kris,
Could you outline the changes for those who might not have seen the
original bylaws yet.
Two issues I have,
1) The ED has to be a member in good standing? So he has to pay to be a
member to keep his job? :)
2) I'm not sure how happy I am to see student memberships gone. I like
the id
On Oct 27, 2010, at 10:19 AM, Chris Malayter wrote:
>
> Kris,
>
> Could you outline the changes for those who might not have seen the original
> bylaws yet.
http://newnog.org/docs/newnog-bylaws.pdf
Should be painless to match up the lines below with the sections above. If it's
not, I'm happ
The Membership WG has created a new draft for the community to review and
discuss.
This draft is not intended to be language for bylaw amendment. Once general
consensus is reached on the membership policies work will begin on writing
language for bylaw amendment where necessary.
The subsection
50 matches
Mail list logo
