It's too late to make changes before the election, so these bylaws will just have to be voted up or down.
That said, these bylaws are designed to be changable. If there's a strong desire to drop down to a single class of membership, all it will take is a majority vote of the membership in next year's election to make it happen. It doesn't even require the 2/3 majority Randy suggests. I'm not entirely comfortable with the membership structure either, but it's what the process and the people who stepped up to do the work came up with. My hope at this point is that it will turn out to work well. If not, we can change it. -Steve On Oct 2, 2010, at 1:20 PM, Randy Bush <ra...@psg.com> wrote: > what nanog needs is very simple. it could have been done in a few > days > months ago [0]. it took time and 'talent' to puff it up with > self-importance, important positiona, and complexity. as long as the > time and talent remain unwhacked, the puffery and ambition will > expand. > > this needs to be whacked. to be simple and constructive, how about > one > class of membership and a 2/3 vote to create more? > > a lurker who is a close friend pointed me to > http://tumblr.austinkleon.com/post/71905637/groucho-marxs-resignation-joke > > randy > > [0] - remember, i helped form nanog while verio was in max start-up > phases. so i know what it takes to do this. > > _______________________________________________ > Nanog-futures mailing list > Nanog-futures@nanog.org > https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures _______________________________________________ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
