Re: [Nanog-futures] Admission for Committee Members
I gave discretion to two people in the below wording: the committee chair and the board. My example was hardship but certainly not limited there. The wording is vague on purpose :-) it allows for discretion. Jared Mauch On Sep 1, 2011, at 9:32 AM, David Temkin wrote: > I'm not a big fan of this because I don't feel that it should only be waived > in the context of a hardship. I get that that's not what you're saying, but > I'd rather keep the logic of the two separate - make the Committee-based > attendance merit based (no pun intended) and give the Board latitude to waive > where appropriate for things such as hardships. > > -Dave > > On Sep 1, 2011, at 9:17 AM, Jared Mauch wrote: > >> >> On Sep 1, 2011, at 7:08 AM, David Temkin wrote: >> >>> For some reason I thought it was 8. My intention was slightly less than >>> the total, so perhaps 4 or 5 and to not specify a specific amount of time, >>> given that some committees might meet for fewer hours than others and I >>> wanted to make sure that everyone was invented to participate, not just the >>> PC. >> >> >> My suggestion would be something more along the lines of: >> >> "The Board may waive registration fees for a committee member at their >> discretion and the request of the committee chair." >> >> This allows those that may have some hardship to be individually dealt with >> and can be either needs or merit based. >> >> The COOP that my children went to pre-school at had a similar >> hardship/participation guideline where they could waive the monthly payments >> for parents that had some hardship. It was merit/needs based and the one >> case I was aware the person pulled more than their fair share of weight and >> was recommended by the teacher. >> >> I would also think that this number should likely be reported (names not >> attached) as part of the post-meeting reports. "Number of registration fees >> waived by BoD: 2" >> >> - Jared > ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Admission for Committee Members
On Sep 1, 2011, at 7:08 AM, David Temkin wrote: > For some reason I thought it was 8. My intention was slightly less than the > total, so perhaps 4 or 5 and to not specify a specific amount of time, given > that some committees might meet for fewer hours than others and I wanted to > make sure that everyone was invented to participate, not just the PC. My suggestion would be something more along the lines of: "The Board may waive registration fees for a committee member at their discretion and the request of the committee chair." This allows those that may have some hardship to be individually dealt with and can be either needs or merit based. The COOP that my children went to pre-school at had a similar hardship/participation guideline where they could waive the monthly payments for parents that had some hardship. It was merit/needs based and the one case I was aware the person pulled more than their fair share of weight and was recommended by the teacher. I would also think that this number should likely be reported (names not attached) as part of the post-meeting reports. "Number of registration fees waived by BoD: 2" - Jared ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Transition update
So, a few private replies later, and I do want to clarify myself somewhat. Nanog surely is a community that can help respond and recover from network events, and further progress to legitimize the group as a real entity will help fulfill that. Think of nanog certified ISPs that prefix filter their customers as well as bcp38 packet filters. Better than regulation IMHO. Jared Mauch On Jun 9, 2010, at 4:59 PM, Shrdlu wrote: > Jared Mauch wrote: > >> I'm usually thinking "Nanog is a mailing list". > > It is, indeed. It is also more. I attended a meeting in LA solely to > gain voting rights. Seriously. If events had not conspired against me, > I'd have attended the past meeting that was in Seattle, for the same reason. > > I will be happy to pay for a membership in whatever nascent creation > comes out of this. However much that is, it will be less than the cost > of travel+meeting fees. > > I'd actually considered volunteering in some capacity or other, but I > don't think I'm dependable enough to do so. > > -- > Math *is* thinking. > It's dance for the brain. > It is a meta-skill. >Whiskey T. Foxtrot > > ___ > 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] Transition update
It also would make me chuckle less when I'm in DC and people call "NANOG" a response organization that can be leveraged to mitigate risk to global telecom (internet) infrastructure. I'm usually thinking "Nanog is a mailing list". - Jared On Jun 9, 2010, at 3:06 PM, Rose Klimovich wrote: > Dan, this would certainly be cleaner and would allow people to “officially” > join and support the organization. Rose > > From: Daniel Golding [mailto:dgold...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 2:57 PM > To: Jared Mauch > Cc: Nanog Futures > Subject: Re: [Nanog-futures] Transition update > > Disclaimer: not a member of the SC/BoD, just talking out of my backside. If > this sucks, tell me to STFU. > > One aspect of this that I have lobbied for is actual voting membership. The > current "membership" structure was never really ideal - basically, you were a > member if you attended a conference once in a blue moon. At least, you got to > vote - there was no membership, per se, because Merit owned things. > > Of all the engineering, design, and operational disciplines, Network > Engineering is the ONLY one without some kind of real professional > organization. IEEE, ASCE, ACM, ASME - heck, the guys who operate boilers in > midsized office buildings have a professional organization. Only network > engineers don'.t > > Why is this desirable? For one thing, you get something to put on your resume > that shows you are serious about the industry, that you partake in forums to > improve your knowledge, that you are willing to share and teach what you > know, and to learn what you don't. There's a strong networking/career > element. I come from an engineer (mechanical) background, and grew up with a > civil engineer as a dad - these organizations can be very useful. > > NANOG has been, slowly, evolving (slouching?) towards that for years. Now's > the time to make that happen. > > So, how do we do it? > > /modest proposal/ > > The "new" organization needs a voting membership. We can set a modest fee > (not ACM or IEEE crazy $$$) for annual or life membership. You get to display > a logo on your business card (when someone gets around to designing it) and > you can put it on your resume. No journals or membership cards - lets not get > crazy. > > Members can vote. Members get a discount for conferences so that the > membership is break even, if you attend two(?) per year (I have done no math > here). Most of us could get our companies to pay, and those that can't get a > tax break. Folks who can't attend conferences could then still participate. > Folks who do attend conference who don't give a crap wouldn't participate. > > Before anyone says it - the IETF is a standards org, not a network > engineering professional society. And I think its broke. > > Anyway, I'll bloviate about this on Sunday when the mic gets opened up, but > something we can all think about. > > BTW, I know everyone has their panties in a knot about not getting stuff soon > enough or not getting enough communications. Please come to the community > meeting prepare to volunteer - I think when we go our own way, they'll be a > lot more opportunities for volunteering. > > - Dan > > > On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 2:42 PM, Jared Mauch wrote: > > On Jun 9, 2010, at 7:08 AM, Sean Figgins wrote: > > > [1] Working as defined as the Internet presence was up and reachable for > > 99+ percent of the time, and the meetings took place as expected with > > topics that were interesting, although not interesting to all the people > > all the time. > > One thing that was always frustrating (As a SC member) was that the "active > community" could be defined as SC+PC+MLC(CC)+Small set of people. > > This was clearly seen in voter turnout numbers each fall. > > - Jared (not a lot of time these days..) > ___ > Nanog-futures mailing list > Nanog-futures@nanog.org > https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures > > > __ > This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. > __ > ___ > 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] Transition update
On Jun 9, 2010, at 7:08 AM, Sean Figgins wrote: > [1] Working as defined as the Internet presence was up and reachable for > 99+ percent of the time, and the meetings took place as expected with > topics that were interesting, although not interesting to all the people > all the time. One thing that was always frustrating (As a SC member) was that the "active community" could be defined as SC+PC+MLC(CC)+Small set of people. This was clearly seen in voter turnout numbers each fall. - Jared (not a lot of time these days..) ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Transition FAQ - version 1
On Apr 17, 2010, at 2:13 AM, Steve Feldman wrote: > Who made the decision? > > We are a group comprising the six elected members of the SC (Steve > Feldman, Patrick Gilmore, Sylvie LaPerriere, Joe Provo, Rob Seastrom, > and Duane Wessels), the PC chair and vice-chair (Dave Meyer and Tom > Daly), and several advisors (Betty Burke, John Curran, Dan Golding, > and Todd Underwood). All decisions made were by unanimous vote of the > SC and PC representatives. Considering the comments by Don, I assume the vote in the SC was not unanimous as the merit appointed member of the SC (whom has a vote) was not mentioned in this text? Can you clarify/update? - Jared ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Smoke at NANOG meetings
On Oct 26, 2009, at 6:12 PM, kris foster wrote: > > On Oct 26, 2009, at 3:06 PM, Steve Gibbard wrote: > >> [snip] >> Given how rare it is to find hotel lobbies in the US or Canada, or >> even in >> Europe, that still allow smoking, it doesn't seem like it would be >> difficult to adopt a policy of only holding NANOG meetings in non- >> smoking >> hotels. I'd like to request that Merit or the Steering Committee >> adopt >> such a policy. > > +1 > > Sorry to all my smoking friends I would be keen to see this restriction put in-place, but unless you are hosting the meeting and picking the venue, it may be challenging. I encourage you to complain to the elected reps in Michigan about your experience here and how you never want to return until a non-smoking law is passed. I enjoy visiting many states with such a law, but Michigan has not seen fit to adopt one yet. It should also be noted that the event in the DR was as bad or worse than the venue in Dearborn as you had to pass through the casino to reach the meeting space. - Jared ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites
On May 12, 2009, at 9:10 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > This problem has become a cyclical event which seems to cause a rash > of finger pointing at the MLC whenever it pops up. This results in I certainly agree on the cyclical problem. This issue keeps coming back. Personally, I'm not entirely certain that it will go away. > some 'action'. That action is usually like using reload as a > workaround to a hardware problem instead of replacing the buggy code. > The result is what we keep discussing: same stuff different day and a > not so job for Kris et al. > > How about a filtered(proactive) -and- an unfiltered(reactive) feed? This is an interesting idea. The next SC meeting is in another week. As mentioned before, I'm certain this topic will be discussed. Coming up on ~4 years total on the SC, it's been a recurring issue. I'm certain it will not be solved overnight. - Jared ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites
On May 12, 2009, at 2:22 AM, Randy Bush wrote: > clearly we have returned to a regime where folk think that > censorship is > the way to improve what they see as the appropriate content of the > nanog > list. > > as part of that, the mlc is now saying "there is a list for that, > ." if someone would do us a favor and accumulate a list of these > lists, one could subscribe to them, unsubscribe from nanog, and dump > the > new lists into the same inbox. > > i, for one, am ready. i have a delete key for messages that do not > interest me. but i do not have an undelete for messages which censors > do not think i should read. I am concerned about the recent trend of thread moderation. I can assure you this has the attention of the SC. - Jared ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Subject line Tag and footer
On May 7, 2008, at 3:33 PM, Gregory Hicks wrote: >> >> Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 11:58:26 -0700 >> From: Aaron Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> +1 as well > > -1 here. > > The subject line I see in my MUA is > > "re: [nanog-futures] Subject line Ta" > > for the nanog list, it is: > > "Re: [NANOG] Microsoft.com PMTUD bla" > > I've also got three footers... Since NO-one EVER trims them out... -1 here as well. Compacting the footer seems like a no-brainer to me. I an finding the subject line thing mixed but am willing to "live with the change" as changing it again may frustrate more users. - Jared ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] [admin] RE: Creating a crystal clear and pure Internet
On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 03:11:33PM -0500, Alfred Farrington II wrote:
> keep politics/culture/society out of it. Maintain as *internet
> operations* list. There's enough of this in the world already.
I suspect that's a bit too purist. there are other things
that have implications to operations, eg: Calea politics and reality
may make operations folks do things differently. I'm not suggesting
that nanog be a forum for lobbying the various governments in the region,
but we don't operate in a vacuum either.
- jared
--
Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Creating a crystal clear and pure Internet
On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 03:24:33PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > ITU anti-botnet initiative > > > > http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/projects/botnet.html > > If nothing else, pick up a copy of this document > http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/docs/itu-botnet-mitigation-to > olkit-background.pdf > and read starting at page 10 entitled "Lack of Coordination among > Stakeholders". Is NANOG just another silo that fails in the objective of > being a forum for Internet operators? Well, the right solution would be to call the NCS watch, right? Or post to nsp-sec? or call whom? - Jared -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from [EMAIL PROTECTED] clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine. ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: Jared's network operator contact list
I think that pch, route views, noc list stuff is of a larger value than the North American nog. Others may think otherwise... Just my own two cents. Jared Mauch On Nov 8, 2007, at 10:45 AM, Joe Abley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 8-Nov-2007, at 10:21, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: Why doesn't the SC discuss with Jared Mauch, the possibility of hosting his network operator contact list at NANOG.ORG? http://puck.nether.net/netops/ This could also be integrated into the AUP, i.e. don't ask questions that can be answered by this list of NANOG resources (NOC list, FAQ, etc.). For that matter, has anyone discussed with PCH about integrating INOC-DBA into NANOG? http://www.pch.net/inoc-dba/ What potential additional benefits do you see in having these two examples associated with the NANOG.ORG domain name, as opposed to leaving them where they are? (What potential motivations might Jared or PCH have in renaming?) I'm not sure I understand the rationale behind your suggestions. Joe (I no longer own a hat)
Re: PC idea
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 02:22:53PM -0600, Joe Abley wrote: > > On 16-Oct-2007, at 1354, Betty J. Burke wrote: > > > Another one of those NANOG lessons... there simply is no time now for such > > a presentation. However, this is a reminder lesson, note for next Fall.. > > > > "Do NOT FORGET" to give SC candidates an opportunity to speak at the > > beginning of the Community Meeting. > > I gave people an opportunity to speak or introduce themselves at the *end* > of the community meeting. Nobody wanted to; I seem to remember asking twice. > > While I agree that it should have been better-organised (e.g. candidates > should have been told ahead of time about the opportunity, so they could be > prepared), with respect to your comment, Marty, it's not entirely accurate > to say that nobody was given an opportunity to speak. The Canidates likely should have known the charter specifies this, as long as time was given (and Joe says was) they missed their chance. - jared -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from [EMAIL PROTECTED] clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
PC idea
lightning talks PLUS(tm)(r)(c) - Steve Gibbard . Talk for 10 minutes, audience gets to vote for additional 5 minutes should they wish the talk to continue and ask questions. - jared -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from [EMAIL PROTECTED] clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
