Yes, I think 'yes' is the right vote. I do have one major concern, but I will vote 'yes' on both issues, regardless.
I really worry about the voter base becoming disjoint from the attendee base. I think meeting attendees should get a vote as a part of attendance. How this is handled is not clear, but I would like to see paying attendees all get to vote for any year in which they attend a meeting. Whether or not non-paying attendees should get a vote is something I'm less site of. Good speakers are rather important and allowing them a vote for their efforts seems reasonably appropriate. Whatever the details, I strongly feel that the concept that meeting attendees must continue to be, as the old T-shirts said, "Official Members". Sent from my iPod On Oct 5, 2010, at 7:34, Sylvie LaPerriere <laperriere.syl...@gmail.com> wrote: > I am joining my voice to Steve's. I view this discussion on membership as > very healthy and it should continue until the community reaches a strong > consensus. > > I think voting 'yes' is the way forward and I also pledge to do what I can > with my Board vote to keep from creating any categories of members that can't > easily be undone until consensus from the community is reached. > > Sylvie > > 2010/10/4 Joel Jaeggli <joe...@bogus.com> > On 10/4/10 12:13 PM, Steve Feldman wrote: > > On Oct 4, 2010, at 11:54 AM, Ren Provo wrote: > > > >> Hi Steve, > >> > >> I appreciate your input here. It was clearly stated yesterday that > >> several folks do not want a fellows membership class but I do not > >> recall the reasoning other than Joel's comment that fee structure > >> should cover all. Can you clarify why you would elect not to > >> recognize significant contributions made from an individual? > >> Thanks! -ren > > > > I personally have nothing against the concept. But some others do, > > and I don't want to make any choices that would be difficult or > > awkward to unmake until we end up with consensus either way. > > Recognition is a valuable socially sustaining community activity. I > don't believe that it has any business being tied to membership. > > Assuming that the bylaws are accepted, certainly some of those deserving > of community recognition will not be members, I don't see that as a problem. > > > [Or, what Mike said!] > > > > Steve > > > > > > _______________________________________________ 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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
