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

Reply via email to