On 10/27/10 3:22 PM, John Springer wrote: > 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). I don't believe the idea of paid membership is up for discussion. In fact, the idea of membership is not up for discussion, and really neither is the idea of what the membership fees are going to be. It is not going to stop anyone, including myself, from discussing it.
We needed some way to determine who is a membership for GOVERNANCE or NewNOG. The membership needs to be separated from conference attendance. Some of this is required by US regulations, some of it is required for other reasons. Conference attendance was never a good way to determine who was a member, and who had the right to vote. Most conference attendees never had any interest in never had an interest in the governance of NANOG (and won't of NewNOG by extension). However, there are quite a few people that have an interest in the governance of NewNOG that are unable to attend the conferences in person for financial reasons. The paid membership accomplishes the following things: 1) It provides a list of individuals that are interested in the GOVERNANCE of NewNOG 2) It provides for separation between those interested in GOVERNANCE and those just wanting to socialize at the conference. 3) It includes those that can't attend the conferences in person. Remember that you can watch from home almost as well as you can attend. 4) It provides some initial start-up costs for NewNOG. Membership will only be <5% of the yearly revenue after the first year. Between now and the end of the year, it is 100%. Next year, is will become less. The definition in 4.1 of the proposal is not excluding anyone that wants to be part of NewNOG or NANOG. In fact, is specifically INCLUDES them. 4.1 (new) Members are required to be active within the Internet network operations community by way of current employment or previous employment if retired, participation in industry forums, academic instruction or scholarship, or volunteer positions. I would count participation in NANOG as "participation in industry forums." NewNOG as well. The language good and should not be changes. No change is needed, as it does not keep anyone out that wants to be in. -Sean _______________________________________________ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
