On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:00:35AM -0700, Steve Gibbard wrote:
[snip]
> Here's my problem with this line of reasoning:
>
> We've got a serious volunteer shortage.
>
> In our upcoming board election, we have four candidates for four
> open seats. As one of those candidates, I'd like to think that
On 9/30/11 10:28 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Wessels, Duane mailto:dwess...@verisign.com>> wrote:
On Sep 16, 2011, at 5:16 AM, Dave Temkin wrote:
> Steve,
>
> Can you ensure that you have that budget available before the meeting,
hopefully at
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:45 PM, Wessels, Duane wrote:
>
> On Sep 30, 2011, at 7:28 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
>
[ snip ]
>
> Can you clarify, would you like to see a balance sheet, say, every meeting,
> every quarter, or once per year?
>
>
Meetings.
Best,
-M<
__
On Sep 30, 2011, at 7:28 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> Nice transparency.
Thanks.
>
> Would it be possible to see a balance sheet as a standard going forward? This
> is good. I'm more interested in a dashboard like report such as a balance
> sheet than this board minutia. Not a complaint, su
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Wessels, Duane wrote:
>
> On Sep 16, 2011, at 5:16 AM, Dave Temkin wrote:
>
> > Steve,
> >
> > Can you ensure that you have that budget available before the meeting,
> hopefully at least a week before?
> >
> > Also, can we have the numbers from NANOG 52 ASAP?
> >
>
On 9/30/11 11:08 , Lynda wrote:
> On 9/30/2011 11:00 AM, Steve Gibbard wrote:
>
>> In our upcoming board election, we have four candidates for four open
>> seats. As one of those candidates, I'd like to think that this is
>> because everybody really wants to vote for us, but the most I can
>> rea
On Sep 30, 2011, at 11:08 AM, Lynda wrote:
> On 9/30/2011 11:00 AM, Steve Gibbard wrote:
>
>> In our upcoming board election, we have four candidates for four open
>> seats. As one of those candidates, I'd like to think that this is
>> because everybody really wants to vote for us, but the most
On 9/30/2011 11:00 AM, Steve Gibbard wrote:
In our upcoming board election, we have four candidates for four open
seats. As one of those candidates, I'd like to think that this is
because everybody really wants to vote for us, but the most I can
really hope for is that being on the board sounds
On Sep 28, 2011, at 11:39 PM, Joel jaeggli wrote:
> On 9/1/11 15:12 , David Temkin wrote:
>> Randy,
>>
>> How is that "getting paid"? Receiving services in kind?
>>
>> Don't know if you've ever done Habitat for Humanity, but you get a free
>> lunch, paid for by those who have given cash to sup
sorry it's been a long time since this thread started, I'm circling back
to it.
On 9/1/11 15:12 , David Temkin wrote:
> Randy,
>
> How is that "getting paid"? Receiving services in kind?
>
> Don't know if you've ever done Habitat for Humanity, but you get a free
> lunch, paid for by those who h
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 1:28 AM, Steven Feldman wrote:
> [Apologies for cross-posting; it turns out many members are not on the
> nanog-futures list.]
>
> In our board meeting this week, we decided not to place this on this year's
> ballot. We feel that as with other decisions regarding conferen
Steve,
Can you ensure that you have that budget available before the meeting,
hopefully at least a week before?
Also, can we have the numbers from NANOG 52 ASAP?
Thanks!
-Dave
On 9/15/11 7:28 PM, Steven Feldman wrote:
[Apologies for cross-posting; it turns out many members are not on the
na
[Apologies for cross-posting; it turns out many members are not on the
nanog-futures list.]
In our board meeting this week, we decided not to place this on this year's
ballot. We feel that as with other decisions regarding conference fees and
discounts, this is best left as an operational policy
I'm perfectly OK with not necessarily codifying this in the bylaws; you're right in that the bylaws doesn't
spell out admission specifically today.
I guess a meta question is - should it? And if it shouldn't, is this just a topic to bring up at the
community meeting and then ask the board to m
Speaking only for myself, and not in any official capacity...
I think Dave's idea has merit. There is precedent for it -- we give
free conference admission to speakers -- so to me the question here is
not whether any contribution should merit free admission, but where
the line should be dr
On Sep 1, 2011, at 8:54 PM, Daniel Golding wrote:
>
> Rather, the loss of revenue to the organization and the
> potential drama around the arrangements are pretty significant.
>
> - Daniel Golding
Possible, and I would expect the board to do their own financial analysis of
the impact of this
On 8/31/11 10:30 AM, David Temkin wrote:
The various committees put in many tireless hours of effort to bring
a content rich, well attended, well sponsored meeting to our
attendees. In return they generally get a free lunch and a brief
thank you. I propose that any committee member who attends
On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 07:56:20PM -0400, Dorian Kim wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 11:30:49AM -0400, David Temkin wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > I would like to propose an amendment to the bylaws for the coming election
> > cycle.
> >
> > The various committees put in many tireless hours of effort
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 7:49 PM, John Springer wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> I have a memory, from the community meetings where the early NEWNOG finances
> were being discussed, that it was _ABSOLUTELY_CRITICAL_ that $100/per member
> fees be implemented. If we didn't, $reallybadthings were completely cer
Thanks John, very constructive input. I advise you to review the latest
numbers instead of going off of a projection done well over a year ago as
part of an outdated proposal.
As you know, I am merely suggesting this get put out to vote. My vote
counts for no more than yours does, like any good
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 11:30:49AM -0400, David Temkin wrote:
> All,
>
> I would like to propose an amendment to the bylaws for the coming election
> cycle.
>
> The various committees put in many tireless hours of effort to bring a
> content rich, well attended, well sponsored meeting to our
Hi David,
I accidently the whole idea that these folks need to be incented. Am I
doing it wrong?
I have a memory, from the community meetings where the early NEWNOG
finances were being discussed, that it was _ABSOLUTELY_CRITICAL_ that
$100/per member fees be implemented. If we didn't, $reall
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Rose Klimovich wrote:
> Dave, I like this idea. It will incent people to come to committee meetings.
> This will make the Nanog meetings we all attend better and more productive.
>
> Rose Klimovich
+1
> On Aug 31, 2011, at 11:30 AM, David Temkin wrote:
>
>> All,
Dave, I like this idea. It will incent people to come to committee meetings.
This will make the Nanog meetings we all attend better and more productive.
Rose Klimovich
On Aug 31, 2011, at 11:30 AM, David Temkin wrote:
> All,
>
> I would like to propose an amendment to the bylaws for the comi
I know, but my intention is to not make people ask for it. If you're a
committee member, and you've attended X number of meetings, you get it, period.
There'll be a tickbox during registration that says "Committee Member", etc.
You shouldn't feel like you're taking food out of other peoples'
I gave discretion to two people in the below wording: the committee chair and
the board. My example was hardship but certainly not limited there. The wording
is vague on purpose :-) it allows for discretion.
Jared Mauch
On Sep 1, 2011, at 9:32 AM, David Temkin wrote:
> I'm not a big fan of t
I'm not a big fan of this because I don't feel that it should only be waived in
the context of a hardship. I get that that's not what you're saying, but I'd
rather keep the logic of the two separate - make the Committee-based attendance
merit based (no pun intended) and give the Board latitude
On Sep 1, 2011, at 7:08 AM, David Temkin wrote:
> For some reason I thought it was 8. My intention was slightly less than the
> total, so perhaps 4 or 5 and to not specify a specific amount of time, given
> that some committees might meet for fewer hours than others and I wanted to
> make sur
For some reason I thought it was 8. My intention was slightly less than the
total, so perhaps 4 or 5 and to not specify a specific amount of time, given
that some committees might meet for fewer hours than others and I wanted to
make sure that everyone was invented to participate, not just the
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 8:30 AM, David Temkin wrote:
> All,
>
> I would like to propose an amendment to the bylaws for the coming election
> cycle.
>
> The various committees put in many tireless hours of effort to bring a
> content rich, well attended, well sponsored meeting to our attendees.
All,
I would like to propose an amendment to the bylaws for the coming election
cycle.
The various committees put in many tireless hours of effort to bring a content
rich, well attended, well sponsored meeting to our attendees. In return they
generally get a free lunch and a brief thank you
31 matches
Mail list logo
