On 9-Oct-2007, at 1053, Stephen Wilcox wrote:
i think the SC should review the idea of 2 meetings per year tho,
maybe that will bring focus and relevance. can i ask you to take it
to your next SC meeting?
I will not be on the SC after NANOG 41, but I will certainly bring it
up there.
We've discussed this within the SC before and the answer at that time
seemed to be that with the current structure of NANOG, reducing to
two meetings per year would leave the NANOG budget even further in
the red, to the extent that we couldn't really afford to try it, even
as an experiment.
However, perhaps the continued difficulties in making revenue match
expenses indicate the need for some more radical thinking; perhaps if
we are willing to throw out the existing structure and move to
something that looks different, the cost structures will better
accommodate a two-meeting schedule. (I'm waving my hands. I don't
have a specific rising-phoenix picture in mind.)
Any change is going to require significant investment of time and
energy by volunteers, however.
What needs to change for you to bother with NANOG again? Or are
you already well beyond caring?
presumably anyone who complains does so because they care. the SC
should note any points made no matter how well hidden in rhetoric
and lack lustre insults :)
:-)
Joe
