On 10/3/10 7:55 AM, Daniel Golding wrote: > 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".
Clearly, I think the answer is yes as well. > 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. Not quite what I had in mind. My point is that when I volunteered for the membership working group, I anticipated some discussion on the membership working group mailing list, and a few conference calls. There was VERY little discussion on the mailing list, and of the two conference calls, one barely made quorum, and the other did not even have the chair able to attend. When suggestions were made, a response came back that indicated that they were not really welcome, and specifics would be worked out outside of the working group. When consensus was reached among the members that seemed to care, about certain items, they ended up not making it into the language that ended up int he bylaws. When draft amendment language was written and proposed to the list to generate discussion, it was ignored. Even the fees were not negotiated, although the representative from the finance working group said that they were pulled out of thin air, and should not mean that they were suggested. Many of us though that $100 per year was too high for people that would not get corporate sponsorship. Others though that it was too low because ARIN charges considerable more. It is not that I expected hundreds or thousands of people to be working on this. I just expected that once the work was delegated to a committee, it would be worked on by that committee, and not end up being worked on by one person in the committee with outsiders, in complete disregard for anything that was going on inside the committee. In the end, I gave up on trying to help. No bad feelings for anyone in the committee. Everyone has things that they need to be doing that they get paid for. Not everyone has the time to lively discussions. I tried to help because I thought that this was important, but in the end, I end up with a sour taste in my mouth from the process. To see this represented to the outside as something that was worked on and decided by the committee... Well, it just is not true. On 10/3/10 8:22 AM, John Osmon wrote: > I personally think that membership can be differentiated best > by "full" and "non". Any special cases can be dealt with by > fee structure. Obviously others thought it was important to > move in another direction. Something like that was certainly proposed in the membership working group, and rather than generate any discussion, it was ignored. Well, not a definition of non-members. I think it can be assumed that anyone that is not a member is a non-member. I think this is all I am going to say about this any more. In the end, it doesn't matter. NANOG will still be NANOG. If this experiment fails, there will be something that replaces it. -Sean _______________________________________________ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
