On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 7:49 PM, John Springer <sprin...@inlandnet.com> wrote: > Hi David, > > I have a memory, from the community meetings where the early NEWNOG finances > were being discussed, that it was _ABSOLUTELY_CRITICAL_ that $100/per member > fees be implemented. If we didn't, $reallybadthings were completely certain, > and anyone who doubted it was not "in the know". Note the outdated doc here, > which is all we appear to have to go on: > https://newnog.org/docs/budget-2010-08.pdf cited a figure of $20,000.00 for > 2011 for memberships fees. Not far off, there are 210 names here: > https://newnog.org/members.php plus some extra years, but say $30,000.00 for > 2011.
I think you may be having a memory problem. The reason it was absolutely critical that the $100/member fee be implemented was 1) cash flow (we didn't have any, and we needed to cash to do stupid, self-serving things like putting down hotel deposits) and 2) to help identify membership in a way that would be acceptable to the IRS (and everyone else) for tax-exempt status. There has also been an unanticipated but totally positive impact - the membership fee has helped to instill a sense of ownership in the organization. Of course, sometimes that sense of ownership manifests itself in a really nasty way, but that's life, I guess. > > Now looking at the lists under the Governance heading here: > http://www.nanog.org/ I see 33 committee members, depending on changing > members and whether you include the Board. So assuming all these folks are > completely incented by this move (and why not?), you propose to forgo the > $1275.00 (3x$425.00 Early Bird Member Registration Fee) revenue each (they > are all currently paying, right)? 33 X $1,275.00 = $42,075.00 per year. > Although I find your tone offensive and your implications ugly, your numbers are correct. > Seriously? Plus, and I mean this in the nicest possible way, and I am sure > that the Program Committee list here: > http://www.nanog.org/governance/program/programcommittee.php is either > incorrect or that you will be leaving the committee structure soon enough > that you will not personally benefit from this proposal, BUT the > _appearance_ of a committee member proposing this suggests the > _faintest_possible_appearance_ of impropriety to me. I am sure that I am a > profoundly disturbed individual for even thinking this way, but just sayin'. > The committee/board membership is such a big chunk of the overall membership (as it should be) that disqualifying them from making proposals that could impact them financially seems ridiculous on the face of it. However, I do agree that you appear to be profoundly disturbed. > If, in fact, the difficulties of staffing the committees require action, may > we please discuss that matter on a list? Oh, I guess we are! Or has the > discussion already taken place in camera and this proposal is the result? If > you are the authorized spokesperson for the NANOG/NewNog structure proposing > this, then I withdraw my innuendo of impropriety and extend my apology. "in camera" - wow, how dramatic! I'll have to use that one. There are no "authorized spokesperson for the NANOG/NewNog structure" - but if we need someone, I suggest we hire the ex-Iraqi Information Minister. That guy is really good. And as far as "innuendo" - you realize that innuendo requires some degree of subtlety, right? > > But the whole thing seems a bit off to me. > > John Springer I can't believe it, but I do agree that this is probably a bad idea. Not because I don't trust the integrity of Dave Temkin - on the contrary, he's a standup guy, widely admired in the Internetworking community. Rather, the loss of revenue to the organization and the potential drama around the arrangements are pretty significant. That being said, I think we should approach our interactions by assuming that everyone is acting in good faith. People will always disagree and people will always make mistakes, but assuming EVIL and CONSPIRACIES, while satisfying and weirdly thrilling, is probably not a good use of anyone's time. - Daniel Golding _______________________________________________ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
