Inline On Wed, 27 Oct 2010, Sean Figgins wrote:
> On 10/27/10 3:22 PM, John Springer wrote: <snip> > I don't believe the idea of paid membership is up for discussion. Sorry, not to be dense, but what? I believe it is all up for discussion. Or is that code for shut up? > 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. This is kind of hard to parse. Fees and the idea of membership are factually not up for discussion, but you and I are not going to be stopped from discussing them? Blech. > We needed some way to determine who is a membership for GOVERNANCE or > NewNOG. The membership needs to be separated from conference > attendance. Why exactly is that? > Some of this is required by US regulations, Citations greatly appreciated. > some of it is > required for other reasons. Such as? > Conference attendance was never a good way > to determine who was a member, and who had the right to vote. According to whom? But nevertheless, fine. Let's vote on it. Oh wait, we disenfranchised ourselves. Never mind. But wait! I bought a refranchise. Let's 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). Fair enough. So that if the idea of paid membership _WAS_ put to a vote, only those interested in governance would have voted? Would that have been bad? > 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. So these folks have never been able to vote. Let's fix that. But then, they have lost nothing. So far, in fact, they might have gained something at the expense of the previous enfranchisees. > The paid membership accomplishes the following things: > > 1) It provides a list of individuals that are interested in the > GOVERNANCE of NewNOG And what use is going to be made of that? Straw man, can of worms. > 2) It provides for separation between those interested in GOVERNANCE and > those just wanting to socialize at the conference. Seriously? Why is separation a good thing? This statement sounds a bit exclusionary. IIRC, there is a bit of a social swirl around Congress? Constituents, and all that. Oh, you want to vote? Pay up, poll tax. > 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. Finally, one that makes sense. I agree that these folks should be enfranchised. > 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. This is a gloss, but OK. But instead of saying everybody pony up some number of bux that we can't talk about, how about the Board of Directors estimate how much they think they will need, BETWEEN NOW AND NANOG 51. Because that is what we are really talking about here, right? or maybe betweeen now and NANOG 52, because after that the revenue stream gets a whole lot wider. and see if we can't cover October-June with a one time pledge or something. cuz the list at: http://www.newnog.org/donors.php which is out of date, doesn't look like it is getting there. And the real and only reason we are supposed to swallow all this is that NANOG needs 10 grand to last until then? And you can't just come out and say it? Really? > 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. Fine. Put that language in the proposal. Lurkers count? How many posts? You say elsewhere that the verbiage matters. Pony up. > 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 I am quibbling. But honestly, it is deserved. We have all been talked into disenfranchisement seppuku. "This was not done by fiat. Don't worry. Trust us. It will be all right." If you say it enough times, it must be true. Right? OK, fine. But now there is no hurry. There is no reason to shut up and lay down. I like Joe's minimum verbiage, but to me the core is this: For better or worse, there was an enfranchised group before. There is a (supposedly) enfranchised group now that is much smaller. The getting from there to here has been the result of a lot of obscurantist rhetoric. That needs to stop, or at least, we need sunshine. If there is going to be fiat, let it be vox populi. John Springer > > _______________________________________________ > 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
