Re: [Nanog-futures] Admission for Committee Members
On Sep 30, 2011, at 11:08 AM, Lynda wrote: On 9/30/2011 11:00 AM, Steve Gibbard wrote: In our upcoming board election, we have four candidates for four open seats. As one of those candidates, I'd like to think that this is because everybody really wants to vote for us, but the most I can really hope for is that being on the board sounds like a lot of work and nobody objects to us strongly enough to want to volunteer. Just a brief question: Could someone be on the PC, and still not attend physically? The bylaws state: To be eligible to be appointed as a member of the Program Committee, an individual must have attended one NewNOG conference within the prior calendar year (12 months). There does not seem to be any attendance requirement once selected (though it appears one would have to attend a meeting in order to be chosen for a second term.) Steve ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
[Nanog-futures] NewNOG membership policy adopted
Based on the proposal sent last month and discussion on this list, the NewNOG Board has adopted a membership policy. As in the proposal, there are two components: a Bylaws amendment to establish a framework, and a board resolution to set the policy. The full text of both parts are appended below. The amendment text is unchanged from the proposal. It takes effect immediately, but will need to be ratified by the membership during the fall election. After discussion on the list, we changed one element of the proposed framework, to allow the member registration discount to be applied to the general early registration rate and only exclude its use from special rates (such as for students.) This change appeared to have broad consensus. We chose to go with this simple set of rules, and can adjust them as needed as we gain experience. As always, discussion on this list is encouraged. Over the next few days, we will establish procedures to become a member, and will announce them here. Thanks, Steve (for the Board) == Bylaws amendment, adopted by unanimous vote of the Board on January 4, 2011, effective immediately but subject to ratification by the membership: - Replace the current section 5 in its entirety with: 5. Membership 5.1 Membership Qualifications Membership in NewNOG is open to any individual with an interest in Internet operations, engineering, or research and who wishes to further education and knowledge sharing within the Internet operations community. Any individual may become a member of NewNOG by completing an application and payment of dues. 5.2 Membership Classes There shall be only one class of membership, with all the rights and privileges specified in these Bylaws. 5.3 Membership Dues The Board of Directors shall specify the cost of annual membership dues. The Board may establish discounts for members meeting certain criteria, or for members wishing to pay for more than one year in advance. 5.4 Rights and Benefits of Members Members in good standing shall be entitled to these privileges: * Vote in all NewNOG elections. * Run as a candidate for the Board of Directors * Serve on an administrative committee, as defined in section 9 * Other privileges as specified by the Board of Directors 5.5 Policies and Procedures The Board of Directors shall establish and publish policies and procedures for implementation of the membership program. == Membership Policies and Procedures, adopted by Board resolution Jan. 4, 2011: 1. Annual Dues 1.1 Standard rate The standard annual dues is $100. 1.2 Student discount Students enrolled in an undergraduate or graduate degree program at an accredited institution will receive a 50% discount for annual dues. Proof of enrollment is required. This may not be combined with any other discount. 1.3 Multi-year discount Individuals who prepay three or more years of membership in advance will receive a 10% discount. This may not be combined with any other discount. 2. Membership Terms 2.1 Start of membership The term of membership shall begin immediately upon receipt of the member's application and payment for dues. 2.2 Expiration of membership 2.2.1 New memberships For new members, the term of membership shall expire one year after the last day of the month during which the membership started, unless membership is renewed. 2.2.2 Continuing memberships For continuing members, the term of membership shall expire one year after the previous expiration date, unless membership is renewed. 2.3 Renewal A member may renew by submitting payment of the current dues amount before the expiration of the current membership term. Members who have prepaid for more than one year in advance shall be automatically renewed for the additional years prepaid. 3. Additional Benefits 3.1 Meeting discount Members in good standing will receive a $25 discount on registration fees for any conference operated by NewNOG. This discount may not be applied any to any special registration rates, such as for speakers, students, sponsors, or members of the press. == ___ 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
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
[Nanog-futures] Proposed bylaws for NewNOG
The NewNOG governance working group, chaired by Steve Gibbard, has published a set of proposed bylaws for the corporation. These may be found at: http://www.newnog.org/docs/newnog-bylaws.pdf Please take a few minutes to review these and make any comments or suggestions. There will be a question on the ballot during the NANOG election next month to ratify these bylaws. Everyone eligible to vote in the NANOG election will also be eligible to vote on this. Thanks, Steve (for the NewNOG board) ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
[Nanog-futures] 2010 NANOG charter amendment proposal
For the 2010 NANOG election, there is one charter amendment currently under consideration by the Steering Committee, which would add a section to the charter enabling and endorsing the the transition of NANOG from of Merit to NewNOG. The full text of the proposed amendment is at: http://www.nanog.org/governance/elections/2010elections/2010charteramend.php The SC plans to vote on final text for the ballot on Tuesday, Sept. 21, so any comments or suggestions for improving the amendment text would be welcomed before then. Steve (for the SC) ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
[Nanog-futures] NANOG Transition Plan track will be webcast
For those interested, the NANOG Transition Plan session, scheduled for 4:30-6:00pm Monday, will be webcast. This is a continuation of the discussion which was held during the community meeting, with an opportunity to go into more detail of the transition planning. Webcast viewing instructions are at http://www.nanog.org/streaming.php. Steve ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] NANOG Transition Plan track will be webcast
On Jun 14, 2010, at 9:16 AM, Randy Bush wrote: For those interested, the NANOG Transition Plan session, scheduled for 4:30-6:00pm Monday, will be webcast. ahem. i presume this will not interfere with the webcasting of the security session. The security session (as with most BOFs/tracks) are not typically webcast or recorded, in order not not discourage candid conversation. It's been that way as long as I can remember. Steve ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Transition update
On May 28, 2010, at 12:09 PM, mkarir wrote: Are there plans to get a community vote on this issue at some point? Yes. As a few people have pointed out, there's no explicit provision in the NANOG charter for something like this. But the intention is to have it on the ballot during the fall NANOG election. Steve ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Transition update
I'm also curious about the financial story here. If the corporation is signing hotel contracts, I assume it has some funds. Are those coming from the Merit NANOG accounts, or is somebody else putting up the money? So far, the corporation has been funded by a few corporate donations of money and services, and some personal funds and lots of volunteer effort from the transition team. Steve ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] wazza plan
Randy, Vijay, and Danny are all correct, we owe you information. I'll send out a progress update later today, and we're working on a more detailed plan/budget to publish in advance of the community meeting. Steve On May 27, 2010, at 9:03 AM, Danny McPherson wrote: On May 27, 2010, at 2:02 AM, Randy Bush wrote: nanog/sf approaches. will our illustrious leadership be sending out at least the basics of a business plan long enough before the meeting that we have time to treat it seriously as opposed to flying foils at the so called community meeting? i would hope to see, at a minimum, three year forward fairly detailed pro forma balance sheet, income statement, and cash flow. I vote we remove these clowns and give it back to merit. we have a few weeks to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they have a business plan. after all, it's simple biz 101. if no clear and believable biz plan *before* nanog, then indeed it is bozoville and something will have to be done to clean up their mess. Irrespective of competence levels (we) elected these folks to serve in what they believe to be in the best interests of the NANOG community. As such, I've implicitly given them the benefit of the doubt to this point. However, in principle I fully agree with Randy and Vijay here, and believe that at least some informal communication on this topic, to illustrate they're listening and set some deliverables and associated timelines for the plan they're surely working, is quite reasonable, will kickoff their transparency agenda, and inform the community. Publishing a work plan for these efforts, even absent the details, is only reasonable. -danny ___ 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
[Nanog-futures] Transition FAQ - version 1
[This will soon be published as a web page, but to avoid any further delays I'm sending the current text now.] NANOG Transition - Frequently Asked Questions = These are questions which have been asked since the current transition was announced. We will do our best to keep this updated with answers to new questions, but please be aware that much of the process has yet to be worked out in detail. We encourage questions and comments on the nanog-futures mailing list, or directly to the SC. Why are we making this change? It has been five years since the NANOG evolution process began, leading towards a form of self-governance. We believe that this model has worked quite well, and that it is now time to take the next steps toward full self-sufficiency. In addition, although Merit Network has been a wonderful host organization, we believe that both organizations would be best served by the ability to focus on their core missions and constituencies. Why should we make this change now? As has been noted, changes at Merit led to much informal discussion among the attendees at NANOG 48 in Austin about NANOG's governance model and relationship with Merit. As a result, we decided to step back and carefully evaluate what NANOG is now, and what we wish it to be in the future. The short answer is why not now? NANOG autonomy is a topic that has been discussed for many years. The difference is that now we have the enviable position of having complete consensus among the NANOG leadership as well as the willingness of everyone involved to contribute significant personal time and effort towards the transition. What sort of staff and budget is it expected to need? This remains to be determined, though we expect to need some combination of paid staff and contracted services. Where would it be based? This has not been determined. How would it be structured? We have started the process of incorporation of a new non-profit entity, with a mission to produce NANOG conferences, administer the NANOG mailing list, and expand our educational outreach. Once this is complete, we will apply for 501(c)(3) educational non-profit status. The current NANOG charter is being adapted for use as bylaws for the new corporation. Are there specific people lined up to run it? The six elected NANOG Steering Committee members will become the initial Board of Directors for the new organization. Beyond that, nothing has been decided. Can we have references from SC Minutes or other sources showing the evolution of the evolution? This was not a formal SC activity, so there were no minutes taken. Will there be documentation of the process moving forward? Minutes for board meetings of the new organization will be published. In the meantime, we will publish progress updates and meeting notes when possible. 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. How can I help? As we proceed through this process we will undoubtedly need much help from the community, so there will be plenty of opportunities to volunteer. In the meantime, we encourage your feedback and advice, either on nanog-futures or directly to the SC. ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
[Nanog-futures] Charter amendments - last chance!
The SC is scheduled to vote on Tuesday 10/6 for charter amendments to include on this year's ballot. The current list is at http://www.nanog.org/charter, and has been significantly revised: - There is actual ballot text. - The ballot text for the proposal to change the MLC to the Communications Committee involved some rearranging and rewriting of the current charter text. Aside from the intended changes to the committee's name and duties, the restructuring should be neutral. Charter geeks, please read it and let me know if the changes have any unintended consequences. - The placeholder proposal to adjust election timing has been withdrawn. - There is one new proposal, to explicitly state that any member of the community may nominate candidates to the SC. Steve ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
[Nanog-futures] Charter amendments
I just sent a long message to the nanog-announce list which I won't bother repeating here. But the summary is: Does anyone want to discuss charter amendments for this year? If so, this is the place. http://www.nanog.org/governance/elections/2009elections/2009charteramend.php Note that the petition deadline to for amendments is September 28. Steve ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Countermeasures for spam from social networks
On May 15, 2009, at 11:29 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote: Mailman can easily snatch phrases in subjects like stock social net invites and 'out of office' or vacation messages. Probably with a very high success rate as well requiring no intervention by admins. Or we could just accept the fact that we'll occasionally have to delete these messages ourselves. Is this really enough of a problem to devote the MLC and Merit's energy toward solving it? I do agree that if this really is worth the effort, filtering on the subject will cause much less collateral damage than filtering on the sender's domain. [My own opinions, SC hat off.] Steve ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites
My personal opinion (not wearing SC hat for the moment) is that enumeration of specific subjects which are on and off topic is an infinite rathole. I'd rather see more generic guidelines, like maybe: - If there's a well-known mailing list for the subject, discussion should be redirected there. I honestly don't mind seeing the occasional newbie question, especially if there are polite and intelligent responses pointing to answers. (See http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg17639.html for an example.) And my delete key can deal with the occasional joke or otherwise off-topic comment. (We already have a working process to deal with chronic abusers.) What bugs me is when these degenerate into long-lived off-topic threads, and that's where I'd like to see the MLC's effort focused. Steve ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Fwd: ADMIN: Reminder on off-topic threads
Back when I ran the PC, people used to suggest that we split our meetings up into tracks. Most folks wanted two tracks: one for stuff they were interested in, and one for everything else. The mailing list is the same way, everyone has a different idea of what's interesting and on-topic. The challenge for the MLC, and the community, is to determine a rough consensus and implement it. And it will always be a moving target, as people and technologies change. My sense is that the current moderation policy is reasonable, though a bit more discussion is warranted and documentation is needed. The list of what's on-topic is more fluid, and periodically needs a new round of consensus-building and AUP rewriting. And that's what I'd like to see this discussion become. Disclaimer: I'm the Steering Committee liaison to the MLC, but these are my personal opinions. Steve ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] [NANOG-announce] Election reminder - charter amendments
On Oct 2, 2008, at 3:16 PM, Steve Gibbard wrote: ... I notice that the last clean-up point in C turns the power the membership has currently to recommend changes to the charter into the power to actually change the charter. My recollection is that the recommended wording is there because having ultimate authority over the charter was important to Merit, who might agree to change it in response to recommendations. Has that changed? I wrote the draft amendment text, so I can comment on this. I wasn't aware of the reasoning behind the original word choice, and I don't believe that it's clear from context, so I assumed it was unintentional. Looking over the charter, I don't see that Merit's *actual* oversight role is explicitly stated anywhere. A casual reader of the charter (if there is such a thing) would assume that NANOG is pretty much an ordinary membership organization. Perhaps that should be remedied? If so, we'd need another amendment, since that goes beyond minor cleanup. If this is an issue, I can think of a few ways forward: 1. Adopt the amendment text as proposed, and continue the implicit understanding with Merit. 2. Adopt the amendment text as proposed, also add text (maybe in section 1 or 4) explicitly stating Merit's oversight role. 3. Same as #2, and add something giving Merit veto power over amendments. 4. Keep the current recommend (remove the item from the amendment), maintaining status quo. 5. Same as #4, but add explicit wording about Merit's role. Comments? Steve ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
[Nanog-futures] 2008 NANOG charter amendments
It's that time of year again, folks, when we get to work on a batch of charter amendment proposals for the October ballot. Suggestions so far are at: http://www.nanog.org/charter/ Rob Seastrom has volunteered to be our community charter wrangler this year, and will be helping to lead discussion on this list and keep the web versions current. If you have comments on the proposals, or suggestions for other amendments, please discuss them on this list or contact Rob directly at [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can also contact me and/or any of the other SC member(s) if you have any concerns. Steve (for the Steering Committee) ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?
On Feb 27, 2008, at 8:51 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 11:23 PM, Ren Provo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We consider the surveys, in addition to mailing list and hallway discussions. I agree with the first two, but not the last. That's the clubby part. I disagree with this assessment of the hallway discussions. One of the things I really admire about the current PC is how they actively engage people between and after sessions to solicit feedback. It would be a mistake to ignore this, just as it would be a mistake to ignore any other form of input. Steve ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
