Inline. On Wed, 27 Oct 2010, Joe Abley wrote: > > On 2010-10-27, at 15:43, Sean Figgins wrote: >> If someone leaves the network operations community for an extended >> period of time, say over a year, I am not sure why they would wish to >> remain a member of NewNOG and pay the fee. > > If they did wish to remain a member of NewNOG, however, I'm not sure why > NewNOG should say no. > > I would strike the whole of 4.1. I see no reason for it. If orchid > enthusiasts want to join NANOG, let them join. > > Joe
and On Wed, 27 Oct 2010, Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote: > The community is > completely open now and it's been successful. I don't see why we > wouldn't have that same inclusivity in the new organization. > > Mike I agree with Joe and Mike. If somebody wants to be a member, we should let them. They don't get to discuss orchids on the list, but they can be a member. <bad analogy> They didn't kick Willy Mays out of baseball or say he couldn't watch the game, because he didn't play anymore. And if he wanted to serve on a committee, they MIGHT let him. </bad analogy> Can I get a memory check on some statements I seem to recall regarding membership from the last two meetings? Since we don't have transcripts. A) We needed to accept _THE IDEA OF PAID MEMBERSHIP_ because we needed to accept the bylaws as written. There was no point in talking about it. B) Paid membership is a fundamental requirement for being an incorporated body/501c3/group with bylaws. C) A major rationale for the idea is the need for immediate funds. D) Dues are projected to be < 5% revenues for a while. E) This year is a fine time to discuss changing the bylaws. So while we are discussing what paid membership should be, may we not discuss whether or not we should have paid membership at all? From my perspective, we seem to be permanently accepting an insufficiently good idea along with a lot of really good ideas simply because the former steering committee thought it sounded like a good idea. And <handwave> we can change it later if we want. I'm sorry, that's backwards. Hence E). Full disclosure. I am a donor/paid member and will continue to be, pretty much regardless of how it all turns out. My quibble is the process of how paid membership came to be, the unconvincing rationale(s) for it and the unseemliness of excluding folks from the club and under which conditions. Disregard the unconvincing rationale bit if either of B or C above is attested to in writing by a member of, I guess it is the Board of Directors now. Although if C is the only rationale, we should IMHO consider sunsetting dues or at least building it into attendance.. Anyway, if we do have to have it, paid membership should be as open as possible. John Springer _______________________________________________ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
