On Oct 2, 2008, at 3:16 PM, Steve Gibbard wrote:
> ... I notice that
> the last clean-up point in C turns the power the membership has
> currently
> to recommend changes to the charter into the power to actually
> change the
> charter. My recollection is that the "recommended" wording is there
> because having ultimate authority over the charter was important to
> Merit,
> who might agree to change it in response to recommendations. Has that
> changed?
I wrote the draft amendment text, so I can comment on this.
I wasn't aware of the reasoning behind the original word choice, and I
don't believe that it's clear from context, so I assumed it was
unintentional.
Looking over the charter, I don't see that Merit's *actual* oversight
role is explicitly stated anywhere. A casual reader of the charter
(if there is such a thing) would assume that NANOG is pretty much an
ordinary membership organization. Perhaps that should be remedied?
If so, we'd need another amendment, since that goes beyond minor
cleanup.
If this is an issue, I can think of a few ways forward:
1. Adopt the amendment text as proposed, and continue the implicit
understanding with Merit.
2. Adopt the amendment text as proposed, also add text (maybe in
section 1 or 4) explicitly stating Merit's oversight role.
3. Same as #2, and add something giving Merit veto power over
amendments.
4. Keep the current "recommend" (remove the item from the amendment),
maintaining status quo.
5. Same as #4, but add explicit wording about Merit's role.
Comments?
Steve
_______________________________________________
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
