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 happy to
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
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
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
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
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 think
-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 Figgins wrote:
If someone leaves the
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: [Nanog-futures] New Membership-WG Draft
On
-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 wrote:
On 10/27/10 1:02 PM, Daniel
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: [Nanog-futures] New Membership-WG Draft
On Oct 27, 2010,
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 did wish to
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 NewNOG and pay
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
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 outreach to
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 good
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Sean Figgins s...@labrats.us 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 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 than
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
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 extraordinary
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 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
21 matches
Mail list logo
