Re: [Nanog-futures] [NANOG-announce] Election reminder - charter amendments
[Sorry for top post, the Jesus-Phone still needs some work.] If any one cares, I vote for #1. -- TTFN, patrick iPhone 3-J (That's 3-Jezuz for the uninitiated.) On Oct 3, 2008, at 17:45, Steve Feldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 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
Re: [Nanog-futures] [NANOG-announce] Election reminder - charter amendments
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 6:16 PM, Steve Gibbard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Philip Smith wrote: > >> Hello everyone, >> >> Please take a moment to look at the current charter amendment proposals >> for the October ballot at: >> >> http://www.nanog.org/charter/ >> >> If you have comments on the proposals, please post them on the >> nanog-futures list or send them to [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the next few days. > > A and B lok fine to me Same. > Most of the charter clean-up thing (C) looks fine to me. 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. That sounds fine to me. -M< ___ 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 Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Philip Smith wrote: > Hello everyone, > > Please take a moment to look at the current charter amendment proposals > for the October ballot at: > > http://www.nanog.org/charter/ > > If you have comments on the proposals, please post them on the > nanog-futures list or send them to [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the next few days. A and B lok fine to me, although given that serious mischeif would require the participation of multiple steering committee members, I'm not sure how important it is that an individual one be easil removable. Most of the charter clean-up thing (C) looks fine to me. 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? -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 3:07 AM, Philip Smith wrote: > Please take a moment to look at the current charter amendment > proposals > for the October ballot at: > > http://www.nanog.org/charter/ > > If you have comments on the proposals, please post them on the > nanog-futures list or send them to [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the next > few days. First, I want the SC to know that someone read and thought about the changes, so they don't think their work was unnoticed or unappreciated. Second, the only comment I have is that I believe a 2/3 super-majority should be required. If I were on the SC, I might feel inhibited from making the "right decision" if I knew 50%+1 could get me booted. Hrmm, I guess the end result of my post is a no-op. :) Sorry for the noise. -- TTFN, patrick ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
