On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 9:19 AM, Joe Provo <nanog-...@rsuc.gweep.net> wrote:
> > > Very much so. > > I'm not sure if the voting system we're piggybacking on allows for > the segmentation Randy suggested, but we'll check with Merit on that > count. If not then I'd think it more than reasonable to have the > board commit to eliding any contentious bits post-ratification since > this next-stage bylaws keeps that board ability just for such fixes. > > Cheers! > > Joe > One thing to keep clearly in mind here - the last charter was an iterative process. It took three to four years to fine tune it, between the mistakes, the unforeseen impacts, and the necessary removal of bootstrap language. This is rev.0. I expect three to four more iterations (hopefully less than two years) before steady-state, and that we can not accurately foresee most of the necessary changes at this point. Thinking back - these bylaws are much better than what we had in 2005. As with networking protocols, perfect is the enemy of "good enough". The question at this point isn't "can we please everyone", its "is this draft sufficiently functional to get us to the next version". I think the answer is clearly "yes". In terms of Sean's comments about a community process - I think we had one. Volunteers were solicited. The work was divided. While it might be an interesting though-experiment to have hundreds of people working on this process, all working on the same bits, simultaneously, I don't think that can work, either logistically, or promptly.
_______________________________________________ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
