Re: [Nanog-futures] Memberships, Bylaws and other election matters
On 10/4/10 12:13 PM, Steve Feldman wrote: > On Oct 4, 2010, at 11:54 AM, Ren Provo wrote: > >> Hi Steve, >> >> I appreciate your input here. It was clearly stated yesterday that >> several folks do not want a fellows membership class but I do not >> recall the reasoning other than Joel's comment that fee structure >> should cover all. Can you clarify why you would elect not to >> recognize significant contributions made from an individual? >> Thanks! -ren > > I personally have nothing against the concept. But some others do, > and I don't want to make any choices that would be difficult or > awkward to unmake until we end up with consensus either way. Recognition is a valuable socially sustaining community activity. I don't believe that it has any business being tied to membership. Assuming that the bylaws are accepted, certainly some of those deserving of community recognition will not be members, I don't see that as a problem. > [Or, what Mike said!] > > Steve > > > ___ 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
Re: [Nanog-futures] Memberships, Bylaws and other election matters
> personally, i am not strongly against it, but am sceptical. it may get > a cash infusion now, but what will it do to income down the road when > folk don't need to renew? [0] > What Jay said is 100% correct. Let me expound a bit on the topic. When someone pays $1000 for life membership now, that's worth, at a minimum, the equivalent of 13 years of membership dues, assuming constant dues (net present value - that's math). Assuming some small increases, lets say 12 years of dues. However, those dollars are much more important to the organization now that they will be in 12 years - heck, they are more important now than in two years. Why? Dues are 90% of the organizations revenue this year (and through mid 2011). They fall to 3% at steady state assuming 250 members at $100 a shot, sometime around the end of 2012. Furthermore, life memberships are expensive enough that very few people will actually buy them, because they are doing a cost-benefit analysis - "how likely am I to be involved in this organization in 12 years?". Furthermore, your opposition will surely depress demand even more, because now folks are saying "why would I pay for a life membership that Randy, for reasons that are largely inexplicable, would attempt to revoke, leaving me with no recourse"* I get the fellow thing, even if I think its silly. The opposition to student membership - I even understand that, although I respectfully disagree. However, your opposition to life memberships is starting to sound like reflexive opposition because you feel like being ornery. > does newnog actually need the infusion up front? are there other ways > to deal with the financial problem that the attempt to create of this > class of membership implies? > > Yes, we do. I have done a complete analysis, which I offered to share with everyone at the community meeting. There were, sadly, no takers. For some reason, bickering about the membership model is more sexy that eyeballing the budget. > randy > - Dan * Of course there IS a recourse if life membership is canceled. Its called "refund the unused portion of the life membership on a pro-rated basis". That is the organization's obligation under GAAP financial standards - the life membership is deferred revenue and can not be recognized up front, AFAIK. BTW, if Randy can do pedantic footnotes, than I will, too! ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Memberships, Bylaws and other election matters
On Oct 4, 2010, at 6:45 PM, "Randy Bush" wrote: >>> and what about lifers, the other long-term unwindable commitment? >> Specifically what is your objection to offering life membership? > > i thought i was pretty clear, if terse. > > we do not have consensus over membership categories. life membership is > unwindable should we decide against it. > > personally, i am not strongly against it, but am sceptical. it may get > a cash infusion now, but what will it do to income down the road when > folk don't need to renew? [0] > > does newnog actually need the infusion up front? are there other ways > to deal with the financial problem that the attempt to create of this > class of membership implies? > > randy > Short term cash supply is important; we have a decent lag between now and NANOG 52 where there will be a significant outflow of cash for salaries, hotel contracts, etc. without any meeting revenue. Having lifetime members commit early will help the balance sheet through this period. In the long run I don't believe it will have a detrimental effect because meeting and development revenue will be coming in. Regards, Mike finance-wg member hat ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Memberships pays for NANOG
On 10/4/10 4:45 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > [0] - i know some rir boards who are asking themselves about where they >get income when folk have /32s and do not need to come back for >more ipv6 space as frequently as they have for ipv4. Irrelevant. RIRs can charge companies an annual fee for the privilege of having routable IP space. If they don't pay, they get their space taken away. If there are RIRs that change on a per-request basis, then that is their fault for structuring that way. NewNOG/NANOG will get most of it's operating funds from the conferences, at least according to the budget forecasts. The issue up front is that NewNOG is going to have to prepay for NANOG 52 facilities, and without any way to take out a loan, it is going to be pretty hard to do. It is likely that we either need a bunch of life members to sign up (risk to the members), or 10X as many regular members. Since I doubt that we will get 1000 members to sign up before NewNOG needs the money, or even in the next year, Someone needs to fund it. Not to mention NANOG53, which will likely need to be paid for before funds for NANOG52 are recovered. I have been involved in other organizations that put on large events. Some venues require full payment for facilities and any other incidentals as much as 6 months in advance. Some may have other requirements. And let's not forget the NewNOG staff that needs to be accounted for. -Sean ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Memberships, Bylaws and other election matters
>> and what about lifers, the other long-term unwindable commitment? > Specifically what is your objection to offering life membership? i thought i was pretty clear, if terse. we do not have consensus over membership categories. life membership is unwindable should we decide against it. personally, i am not strongly against it, but am sceptical. it may get a cash infusion now, but what will it do to income down the road when folk don't need to renew? [0] does newnog actually need the infusion up front? are there other ways to deal with the financial problem that the attempt to create of this class of membership implies? randy -- [0] - i know some rir boards who are asking themselves about where they get income when folk have /32s and do not need to come back for more ipv6 space as frequently as they have for ipv4. ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Memberships, Bylaws and other election matters
On 10/4/10 3:21 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > and what about lifers, the other long-term unwindable committment? I was a rather inactive member of the Membership WG. Schedules prevented me from making any of the conference calls. I agree with the "Fellow" being something that can be dispensed with for the time being and perhaps considered in the future. I don't see why the life member situation is a problem. One goal in support of offering life membership is to front-load the funding of NewNOG. Ten years is a very long time in Internet years. Getting cash in hand of 10x annual dues now in exchange for no future dues in year 11 onward from those who both live long enough and remain interested in the organization and its goals doesn't seem like a bad idea. In my opinion there's more risk on the part of the person putting up the cash for life membership than there is for the organization. Will NewNOG/NANOG be around ten years from now? Can I invest the money for a better rate of return than likely dues increases? Will I live that long? Will I still want to be active in internetworking eleven years from now? As a reward for committing ten years' membership up front, having dues forgiven in year eleven onward seems like a win-win. Specifically what is your objection to offering life membership? -- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - j...@impulse.net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Memberships, Bylaws and other election matters
> > > > and what about lifers, the other long-term unwindable committment? > > Ahhh the though of being referred to as a lifer :) ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Memberships, Bylaws and other election matters
> If the vote fails and these Bylaws are not adopted, the current > initial Bylaws will remain in effect. These are very minimal, > covering only a basic nonprofit corporate structure with boilerplate > necessary to make the IRS happy, and pretty much everything else left > to the Board's discretion. if the board acts calmly and sanely, this is not bad > Since we don't have consensus on the membership issue yet, I will > pledge to do what I can with my Board vote keep from moving down the > path specified in the draft in ways that can't easily be undone when > we do come to a consensus. this is helpful > As one example, I will vote against creating any "fellow" members if > it should come up. will sc members also make this committment? and what about lifers, the other long-term unwindable committment? randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Memberships, Bylaws and other election matters
On Oct 4, 2010, at 9:13 AM, Steve Feldman wrote: > On Oct 4, 2010, at 11:54 AM, Ren Provo wrote: >> I appreciate your input here. It was clearly stated yesterday that several >> folks do not want a fellows membership class but I do not recall the >> reasoning other than Joel's comment that fee structure should cover all. >> Can you clarify why you would elect not to recognize significant >> contributions made from an individual? Thanks! -ren > I personally have nothing against the concept. But some others do, and I > don't want to make any choices that would be difficult or awkward to unmake > until we end up with consensus either way. I tend to agree, in the sense that Fellows are probably a good idea, but are an institution much more common in a mature organization than in a startup. I'd advocate keeping things as simple and stripped-down as possible during the startup phase, and then gradually introducing concepts like this as they become necessary. -Bill ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Memberships, Bylaws and other election matters
On Oct 4, 2010, at 11:54 AM, Ren Provo wrote: > Hi Steve, > > I appreciate your input here. It was clearly stated yesterday that several > folks do not want a fellows membership class but I do not recall the > reasoning other than Joel's comment that fee structure should cover all. Can > you clarify why you would elect not to recognize significant contributions > made from an individual? Thanks! -ren I personally have nothing against the concept. But some others do, and I don't want to make any choices that would be difficult or awkward to unmake until we end up with consensus either way. [Or, what Mike said!] Steve ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Memberships, Bylaws and other election matters
--On 4 October 2010 11:54:37 -0400 Ren Provo wrote: > Can you clarify why you would elect not to recognize significant > contributions made from an individual? Thanks! -ren I hope I'm not putting words in Steve's mouth here... I think what Steve is saying is that he won't vote in favour of these things while they are still a bone of contention, until such time that the contention is resolved, so that no hands are getting tied along the way. That's the way I read it. Mike ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Memberships, Bylaws and other election matters
Hi Steve, I appreciate your input here. It was clearly stated yesterday that several folks do not want a fellows membership class but I do not recall the reasoning other than Joel's comment that fee structure should cover all. Can you clarify why you would elect not to recognize significant contributions made from an individual? Thanks! -ren On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Steve Feldman wrote: > I'd like to make a few comments about the NewNOG Bylaws and other election > questions. These are my opinions only, and don't necessarily reflect those > of the NewNOG Board or anyone else. > > As with any consensus-driven effort, the NewNOG Bylaws draft was the result > of a lot of work by a lot of people, led by a few dedicated committee > chairs. The Board tried to stay mostly out of the process, in hopes of > encouraging community input. I believe that the result was a good first > attempt at what will undoubtedly be an iterative process. > > Given the discussion on this list and in the community meeting yesterday, > it's clear that we don't have consensus on the membership issue, and that > there's at least significant support for the position that the proposed > membership is too complex for our community's goals. Aside from that, I > haven't heard many other comments on the draft, which I am hopeful means > that we are reaching consensus on the other portions of the Bylaws. > > It is unfortunate that we didn't think to have a vote on the draft in > sections, but it's too late to change that. Assuming that these Bylaws are > adopted, we do have ways to fix mistakes. There's another election a year > from now, with ways for both the Board and community members to place > amendments on the ballot. > > If the vote fails and these Bylaws are not adopted, the current initial > Bylaws will remain in effect. These are very minimal, covering only a basic > nonprofit corporate structure with boilerplate necessary to make the IRS > happy, and pretty much everything else left to the Board's discretion. > > Given the above, I still recommend a "yes" vote to adopt the Bylaws, as > it's a large step in the right direction for NewNOG. > > Since we don't have consensus on the membership issue yet, I will pledge to > do what I can with my Board vote keep from moving down the path specified in > the draft in ways that can't easily be undone when we do come to a > consensus. As one example, I will vote against creating any "fellow" > members if it should come up. > > I hope this helps, and I encourage everyone to vote however you feel is > best for the community. > > Thanks, >Steve > > > ___ > 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
Re: [Nanog-futures] Final bylaws proposal
On 10/03/2010 03:01 PM, Daniel Golding wrote: > To address the Life member issue: I was one of the folks who requested this, > coming from a 100% financial/budgetary point of view. The organization needs > front loaded revenue to help seed the process. Early expenses include hotel > deposits. That money doesn't magically appear from mid air. Folks willing to > step up and pay for a lifetime membership are making a good investment in the > organization. Early donations have been helpful, but only to a limited point. You can't call it 'Life' membership if that membership can be revoked. ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
[Nanog-futures] Memberships, Bylaws and other election matters
I'd like to make a few comments about the NewNOG Bylaws and other election questions. These are my opinions only, and don't necessarily reflect those of the NewNOG Board or anyone else. As with any consensus-driven effort, the NewNOG Bylaws draft was the result of a lot of work by a lot of people, led by a few dedicated committee chairs. The Board tried to stay mostly out of the process, in hopes of encouraging community input. I believe that the result was a good first attempt at what will undoubtedly be an iterative process. Given the discussion on this list and in the community meeting yesterday, it's clear that we don't have consensus on the membership issue, and that there's at least significant support for the position that the proposed membership is too complex for our community's goals. Aside from that, I haven't heard many other comments on the draft, which I am hopeful means that we are reaching consensus on the other portions of the Bylaws. It is unfortunate that we didn't think to have a vote on the draft in sections, but it's too late to change that. Assuming that these Bylaws are adopted, we do have ways to fix mistakes. There's another election a year from now, with ways for both the Board and community members to place amendments on the ballot. If the vote fails and these Bylaws are not adopted, the current initial Bylaws will remain in effect. These are very minimal, covering only a basic nonprofit corporate structure with boilerplate necessary to make the IRS happy, and pretty much everything else left to the Board's discretion. Given the above, I still recommend a "yes" vote to adopt the Bylaws, as it's a large step in the right direction for NewNOG. Since we don't have consensus on the membership issue yet, I will pledge to do what I can with my Board vote keep from moving down the path specified in the draft in ways that can't easily be undone when we do come to a consensus. As one example, I will vote against creating any "fellow" members if it should come up. I hope this helps, and I encourage everyone to vote however you feel is best for the community. Thanks, Steve ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
[Nanog-futures] No vote implications
Can someone clarify what the implication of a no vote on the proposed charter amendment are. Does that represent a vote of no confidence in the existing SC? -manish ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] No vote implications
> Can someone clarify what the implication of a no vote on the proposed > charter amendment are. Does that represent a vote of no confidence in > the existing SC? that is the problem with not segmenting it, you can't tell. but i would not take it that way. there is an sc election for that. randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
