On Fri, 28 May 2010, Joe Abley wrote: > I think it's quite within the SC's mandate to do this without a vote, > and I also think there's no obvious mechanism within the bylaws to hold > a vote on any particular issue (we had our vote; we voted for members of > the SC).
The NANOG charter, under which the SC was elected, says NANOG is an activity of Merit. It specifies a process for ammendments, which involves having a vote of the membership. Of course, any group of people can start up a corporation, enter into contracts, and host conferences (which none of us have to attend). Therefore, the NANOG charter probably doesn't technically apply to this situation. Still, the given that the charter is what gave the SC their unofficial legitimacy to contemplate such a move, it would be nice if they followed its spirit and held a vote. I'm also curious about the financial story here. If the corporation is signing hotel contracts, I assume it has some funds. Are those coming from the Merit NANOG accounts, or is somebody else putting up the money? If the membership were to vote to stick with Merit as the NANOG administrator, is that something Merit would still be willing to do? For the record, I'll say that if such a vote were held, I would probably vote for NANOG to become a standalone organization. I also don't think this move would have come as a surprise to anybody involved in the hallway NANOG governance discussions at the Austin NANOG. Given the questions that members of the Steering Committee were asking there, I don't think they rushed into at least the beginning of this process. -Steve -- Steve Gibbard s...@gibbard.org +1 415 717-7842 (cell) _______________________________________________ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
