> To address the issue of multiple membership classes: one can always explain/excuse complexity. it is simplicity which requires restraint and thought.
hint: fee differentiation has not needed membership categories in the past. we have needed none of this category differentiation in the past. we don't need it now. a whole lot of "may," "could," and "what if," when all we need is a simple way to continue to operate a mailing list and hold meetings after getting into a premature and unnecessary pissing contest with merit when the results had not been thought through. > The questions to ask now are: > * Are the bylaws functional? > * Can they be fixed if there are issues? Foreseen or not. > I believe the answer to both is 'yes'. i believe the answers, especially to the latter, are no. once you have anointed people 'fellows' and once you have collected life membership fees, gonna be real hard to unwind. it is easy to add complexity when it is seen as actually needed (see yagni). it is very hard to remove it once installed. < mandatory anecdote > so we could know what we are seeing, i once asked to have route views peers marked by what view they were sending, internal, customer, or peer. next i looked, it had been ietfed into a complex monster, draft-meyer-collection-communities-00.txt. of course this never was implemented. randy _______________________________________________ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
