Re: [Nanog-futures] Admission for Committee Members

[Joe Provo]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:00:35AM -0700, Steve Gibbard wrote:
[snip]
> Here's my problem with this line of reasoning:
> 
> We've got a serious volunteer shortage.
>
> 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.

I humbly suggest that the folks "in office" should take a 
strong hand in drumming up candidates. Especially as they 
will know what sort of skills will be needed for what's on
the horizon. I presume it is still similar, but when I was 
SC Chair, homework during the election period for all 
committee members was recruiting volunteers and participating 
in a schedule & rotation of notices to mail to get different 
names in the nanog-announce mail stream.  I'm sure there are 
better methods of spreading the load.
 
> For the Program Committee, which makes NANOG conferences what
> they are, the shortage is far worse.  We have seven open seats and
> four candidates.

...and the nomination period is still open. ISTR that many 
nominations roll in during the meeting, when the drumbeating
continues.

> It seems pretty clear that the incentive structures we have now
> aren't working.  Those arguing here that they'd be volunteering
> without any further incentives are not currently volunteering, and
> neither are very many other people.

See previous paragraphs. How much outreach to new blood, or 
to people who ran before, has occured? Simply contacting 
those who ran before, but hadn't served and still had and 
interest built up a nice slate of solid candidates in years 
past. I did notice that in the change to AMS, we no longer 
have the membership list published, so it is hard for us 
"on the outside" to know who is eligible to be nominated.

> There are many likely causes of this.
> Partly, I think we have some volunteer fatigue.  There's been a
> whole lot of work, done by a whole lot of people, over the last
> couple of years to get the new organization off the ground and to
> keep the old one running, and a lot of those people would be quite
> justified in being burned out.  But if NANOG is going to go on, we
> need to get people to
> 
> So, what do we do?
>
> I'm not convinced that allowing people to do large amounts of
> work towards putting on the conference in lieu of paying meeting
> fees would create a "privileged class of participants."  If anything,
> getting to simply pay meeting fees and show up seems like a relative
> bargain, and charging people to attend an event they've helped to
> produce seems tacky.  But, given that a lot of peoples' employers
> pay their meeting fees anyway, and might value their employees'
> time more than they'd value the savings on meeting fees, I'm not
> sure how many new people it would get us.

Observations:
- encoding in the bylaws is micromanagement we've sought to 
  avoid previously
- blanket 'perks' regardless of level of participation are 
  eventually abused
- SC chair [and PC chair?] have had some discretion in 
  doling out at least one comp registration per meeting
- hardship and reward [as you suggest] from the chairs is 
  a logical extension of such discretion
...so if anything must be codified, IMO it should be that the
Chairs have the ability to waive registration fees for committee 
members as they see fit. Then no only do you incentive to volunteer,
but ongoing incentive to actually produce.

> Ideally, we'll get a flood of volunteers in the next few days,
> and this issue will become moot.  I started asking around yesterday
> for a volunteer to replace me as Membership Chair, and within minutes
> had found somebody bursting with ideas and eager to take on the
> role.  I'd love to see some people who would show that level of
> excitement towards the NANOG program.

Excellent way to demonstrate that outreach is key.

> But if that doesn't happen, I'm looking for ideas.  Are free or
> discounted conference fees for volunteers the right answer?  Is
> there some other incentive that would work better?  Are there people
> we should be reaching out to and trying to recruit who we haven't?
>
> Ideas, please.

See above for a minor adjustment that might meet this need. Also:
- At least the membership should see the member list to 
  know who to poke (behind a member portal is there is 
  paranoia about publishing member names). 
- While that is presently out of reach, more visible outreach by 
  those on the inside who *do* know.
- What plans/campaigns have the Board generated/received from our 
  staff (if any) and why were they rejected.

Cheers!

Joe
-- 
 RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE / NewNOG

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listi

Re: [Nanog-futures] Admission for Committee Members

[Dave Temkin]

On 9/30/11 10:28 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Wessels, Duane mailto:dwess...@verisign.com>> wrote:


On Sep 16, 2011, at 5:16 AM, Dave Temkin wrote:

> Steve,
>
> Can you ensure that you have that budget available before the meeting, 
hopefully at least a week before?
>
> Also, can we have the numbers from NANOG 52 ASAP?
>

Dave and other Members:

The slides for the financial report that I will give are now posted here:

http://www.nanog.org/about/financial/documents/N53-Treasurer_000.pdf



Nice transparency.



+1, thank you very much.

-Dave




Would it be possible to see a balance sheet as a standard going forward? This is good. I'm more interested 
in a dashboard like report such as a balance sheet than this board minutia. Not a complaint, suggestion. 
Thanks kindly!


Best,

-M<


___
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] Admission for Committee Members

[Martin Hannigan]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:45 PM, Wessels, Duane wrote:

>
> On Sep 30, 2011, at 7:28 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
>
[ snip ]


>
> Can you clarify, would you like to see a balance sheet, say, every meeting,
> every quarter, or once per year?
>
>
Meetings.

Best,

-M<
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Admission for Committee Members

[Wessels, Duane]

On Sep 30, 2011, at 7:28 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:

> Nice transparency. 

Thanks.

> 
> Would it be possible to see a balance sheet as a standard going forward? This 
> is good. I'm more interested in a dashboard like report such as a balance 
> sheet than this board minutia. Not a complaint, suggestion. Thanks kindly!

We intend to post more detailed reports on AMS' ARO site for bonafide
members to view.  I think it would be appropriate to post the balance sheet
there and we welcome additional input on the level of detail that members
would like to see in the financial reports.

Can you clarify, would you like to see a balance sheet, say, every meeting,
every quarter, or once per year?

Duane W.
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Admission for Committee Members

[Martin Hannigan]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Wessels, Duane wrote:

>
> On Sep 16, 2011, at 5:16 AM, Dave Temkin wrote:
>
> > Steve,
> >
> > Can you ensure that you have that budget available before the meeting,
> hopefully at least a week before?
> >
> > Also, can we have the numbers from NANOG 52 ASAP?
> >
>
> Dave and other Members:
>
> The slides for the financial report that I will give are now posted here:
>
> http://www.nanog.org/about/financial/documents/N53-Treasurer_000.pdf
>
>

Nice transparency.

Would it be possible to see a balance sheet as a standard going forward?
This is good. I'm more interested in a dashboard like report such as a
balance sheet than this board minutia. Not a complaint, suggestion. Thanks
kindly!

Best,

-M<
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Admission for Committee Members

[Joel jaeggli]

On 9/30/11 11:08 , 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?

there are any number of active pc memebers who have misssed meetings.
it's possible frankly to be a valuable contributor and not be able to
attend all of them.



___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Admission for Committee Members

[Steve Feldman]

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

Re: [Nanog-futures] Admission for Committee Members

[Lynda]

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?


--
At the head of all the sciences and arts, at the head of civilization
and progress, stands -- not militarism, the science that kills; not
commerce, the art that accumulates wealth -- but agriculture, the
mother of all industry and the maintainer of human life.
James A. Garfield

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Admission for Committee Members

[Steve Gibbard]

On Sep 28, 2011, at 11:39 PM, Joel jaeggli wrote:

> On 9/1/11 15:12 , David Temkin wrote:
>> Randy,
>> 
>> How is that "getting paid"?  Receiving services in kind?
>> 
>> Don't know if you've ever done Habitat for Humanity, but you get a free
>> lunch, paid for by those who have given cash to support the cause and not
>> labor.
>> 
>> To bring it closer to home - we give our presenters a free admission -
>> should we also stop that?
> 
> we should avoid as we did with the question of lifetime members, the
> danger of creating a privileged class of participants.
> 
> presenters are offered a consideration for the sharing of their
> insights. the program committee members are free to submitt material to
> the program (and many do in my experience).

Here's my problem with this line of reasoning:

We've got a serious volunteer shortage.

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.

For the Program Committee, which makes NANOG conferences what they are, the 
shortage is far worse.  We have seven open seats and four candidates.

It seems pretty clear that the incentive structures we have now aren't working. 
 Those arguing here that they'd be volunteering without any further incentives 
are not currently volunteering, and neither are very many other people.

There are many likely causes of this.  Partly, I think we have some volunteer 
fatigue.  There's been a whole lot of work, done by a whole lot of people, over 
the last couple of years to get the new organization off the ground and to keep 
the old one running, and a lot of those people would be quite justified in 
being burned out.  But if NANOG is going to go on, we need to get people to 
step up and do the work somehow.

So, what do we do?

I'm not convinced that allowing people to do large amounts of work towards 
putting on the conference in lieu of paying meeting fees would create a 
"privileged class of participants."  If anything, getting to simply pay meeting 
fees and show up seems like a relative bargain, and charging people to attend 
an event they've helped to produce seems tacky.  But, given that a lot of 
peoples' employers pay their meeting fees anyway, and might value their 
employees' time more than they'd value the savings on meeting fees, I'm not 
sure how many new people it would get us.

Ideally, we'll get a flood of volunteers in the next few days, and this issue 
will become moot.  I started asking around yesterday for a volunteer to replace 
me as Membership Chair, and within minutes had found somebody bursting with 
ideas and eager to take on the role.  I'd love to see some people who would 
show that level of excitement towards the NANOG program.

But if that doesn't happen, I'm looking for ideas.  Are free or discounted 
conference fees for volunteers the right answer?  Is there some other incentive 
that would work better?  Are there people we should be reaching out to and 
trying to recruit who we haven't?

Ideas, please.

Thanks,
Steve
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Admission for Committee Members

[Joel jaeggli]

sorry it's been a long time since this thread started, I'm circling back
to it.

On 9/1/11 15:12 , David Temkin wrote:
> Randy,
> 
> How is that "getting paid"?  Receiving services in kind?
> 
> Don't know if you've ever done Habitat for Humanity, but you get a free
> lunch, paid for by those who have given cash to support the cause and not
> labor.
> 
> To bring it closer to home - we give our presenters a free admission -
> should we also stop that?

we should avoid as we did with the question of lifetime members, the
danger of creating a privileged class of participants.

presenters are offered a consideration for the sharing of their
insights. the program committee members are free to submitt material to
the program (and many do in my experience).

joel - former two term pc participant.


> -Dave
> On Sep 1, 2011 3:27 PM, "Randy Bush"  wrote:
>> i do not support getting paid for community service. a primrose path.
>>
>> randy
>>
> 


___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Admission for Committee Members

[Martin Hannigan]

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 1:28 AM, Steven Feldman  wrote:

> [Apologies for cross-posting; it turns out many members are not on the
> nanog-futures list.]
>
> In our board meeting this week, we decided not to place this on this year's
> ballot.  We feel that as with other decisions regarding conference fees and
> discounts, this is best left as an operational policy decision rather than a
> corporate governance issue.
>
>

I lost the context in this thread related to this statement, but I'm not
sure why you need a ballot question related to day to day operations of the
organization. Less overhead == better.

Allowing volunteers that are elected and appointed to committee to have
their admission waived benefits the organization to some extent. It's likely
to widen the gene pool and provide NANOG v2 with some fresh meat, something
that we are sorely in need of and the main reason why I support this.

Best,

-M<
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Admission for Committee Members

[Dave Temkin]

Steve,

Can you ensure that you have that budget available before the meeting, 
hopefully at least a week before?

Also, can we have the numbers from NANOG 52 ASAP?

Thanks!
-Dave

On 9/15/11 7:28 PM, Steven Feldman wrote:

[Apologies for cross-posting; it turns out many members are not on the 
nanog-futures list.]

In our board meeting this week, we decided not to place this on this year's ballot.  We feel that as with 
other decisions regarding conference fees and discounts, this is best left as an operational policy 
decision rather than a corporate governance issue.


The petition process is available as an alternative if a sufficient portion of the membership wishes to 
put this on the ballot without the board's involvement.


The board has taken no position on the underlying question of waiving fees for volunteers.  We encourage 
continued community discussion on this topic, both on these mailing lists and and during the open members 
meeting at NANOG 53.  By that time, we will have a draft budget for 2012 available which will allow us to 
determine the financial impact of such a policy.


Thanks,
 Steve

On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Dave Temkin mailto:d...@temk.in>> wrote:

I'm perfectly OK with not necessarily codifying this in the bylaws; you're 
right in that the bylaws
doesn't spell out admission specifically today.

I guess a meta question is - should it?  And if it shouldn't, is this just 
a topic to bring up at the
community meeting and then ask the board to move on there?

-Dave



On 9/2/11 2:30 PM, Steve Gibbard wrote:

Speaking only for myself, and not in any official capacity...

I think Dave's idea has merit.  There is precedent for it -- we give 
free conference admission to
speakers -- so to me the question here is not whether any contribution 
should merit free
admission, but where the line should be drawn.

That said, is there a reason to put this in the bylaws?  The bylaws are 
currently silent on the
subject of conference fees, meaning the board can set them however it 
wants.  If the board were to
enact something like this, it would have a lot of flexibility to vary 
the discounts and
elligibility, based on what sorts of incentives were needed and how 
much money was available.  If
this went in as a bylaw ammendment, changing it later would be 
cumbersome.

-Steve



On Aug 31, 2011, at 10:30 AM, David Temkin mailto:d...@temk.in>> wrote:

All,

I would like to propose an amendment to the bylaws for the coming 
election cycle.

The various committees put in many tireless hours of effort to 
bring a content rich, well
attended, well sponsored meeting to our attendees.  In return they 
generally get a free lunch
and a brief thank you.  I propose that any committee member who 
attends six or more committee
meetings between NANOG meetings is entitled to a free registration 
for the upcoming meeting.
Attendance would be gauged by the chair of the committee and this 
would only be available as a
benefit to sanctioned committees.

I'll keep this short and sweet, however I feel that this is the 
least that we can do for our
hard working committee members.  I would ask that the Board sponsor 
this for the upcoming
election, however if they choose not to I think we can put this out 
to petition.

Thanks,
-Dave


___
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 mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Admission for Committee Members

[Steven Feldman]

[Apologies for cross-posting; it turns out many members are not on the
nanog-futures list.]

In our board meeting this week, we decided not to place this on this year's
ballot.  We feel that as with other decisions regarding conference fees and
discounts, this is best left as an operational policy decision rather than a
corporate governance issue.

The petition process is available as an alternative if a sufficient portion
of the membership wishes to put this on the ballot without the board's
involvement.

The board has taken no position on the underlying question of waiving fees
for volunteers.  We encourage continued community discussion on this topic,
both on these mailing lists and and during the open members meeting at NANOG
53.  By that time, we will have a draft budget for 2012 available which will
allow us to determine the financial impact of such a policy.

Thanks,
 Steve

On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Dave Temkin  wrote:

> I'm perfectly OK with not necessarily codifying this in the bylaws; you're
> right in that the bylaws doesn't spell out admission specifically today.
>
> I guess a meta question is - should it?  And if it shouldn't, is this just
> a topic to bring up at the community meeting and then ask the board to move
> on there?
>
> -Dave
>
>
>
> On 9/2/11 2:30 PM, Steve Gibbard wrote:
>
>> Speaking only for myself, and not in any official capacity...
>>
>> I think Dave's idea has merit.  There is precedent for it -- we give free
>> conference admission to speakers -- so to me the question here is not
>> whether any contribution should merit free admission, but where the line
>> should be drawn.
>>
>> That said, is there a reason to put this in the bylaws?  The bylaws are
>> currently silent on the subject of conference fees, meaning the board can
>> set them however it wants.  If the board were to enact something like this,
>> it would have a lot of flexibility to vary the discounts and elligibility,
>> based on what sorts of incentives were needed and how much money was
>> available.  If this went in as a bylaw ammendment, changing it later would
>> be cumbersome.
>>
>> -Steve
>>
>>
>>
>> On Aug 31, 2011, at 10:30 AM, David Temkin  wrote:
>>
>>  All,
>>>
>>> I would like to propose an amendment to the bylaws for the coming
>>> election cycle.
>>>
>>> The various committees put in many tireless hours of effort to bring a
>>> content rich, well attended, well sponsored meeting to our attendees.  In
>>> return they generally get a free lunch and a brief thank you.  I propose
>>> that any committee member who attends six or more committee meetings between
>>> NANOG meetings is entitled to a free registration for the upcoming meeting.
>>> Attendance would be gauged by the chair of the committee and this would only
>>> be available as a benefit to sanctioned committees.
>>>
>>> I'll keep this short and sweet, however I feel that this is the least
>>> that we can do for our hard working committee members.  I would ask that the
>>> Board sponsor this for the upcoming election, however if they choose not to
>>> I think we can put this out to petition.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> -Dave
>>>
>>>
>>> __**_
>>> 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 mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Admission for Committee Members

[Dave Temkin]

I'm perfectly OK with not necessarily codifying this in the bylaws; you're right in that the bylaws doesn't 
spell out admission specifically today.


I guess a meta question is - should it?  And if it shouldn't, is this just a topic to bring up at the 
community meeting and then ask the board to move on there?


-Dave


On 9/2/11 2:30 PM, Steve Gibbard wrote:

Speaking only for myself, and not in any official capacity...

I think Dave's idea has merit.  There is precedent for it -- we give free conference admission to speakers 
-- so to me the question here is not whether any contribution should merit free admission, but where the 
line should be drawn.


That said, is there a reason to put this in the bylaws?  The bylaws are currently silent on the subject of 
conference fees, meaning the board can set them however it wants.  If the board were to enact something 
like this, it would have a lot of flexibility to vary the discounts and elligibility, based on what sorts 
of incentives were needed and how much money was available.  If this went in as a bylaw ammendment, 
changing it later would be cumbersome.


-Steve



On Aug 31, 2011, at 10:30 AM, David Temkin  wrote:


All,

I would like to propose an amendment to the bylaws for the coming election 
cycle.

The various committees put in many tireless hours of effort to bring a content rich, well attended, well 
sponsored meeting to our attendees.  In return they generally get a free lunch and a brief thank you.  I 
propose that any committee member who attends six or more committee meetings between NANOG meetings is 
entitled to a free registration for the upcoming meeting. Attendance would be gauged by the chair of the 
committee and this would only be available as a benefit to sanctioned committees.


I'll keep this short and sweet, however I feel that this is the least that we can do for our hard working 
committee members.  I would ask that the Board sponsor this for the upcoming election, however if they 
choose not to I think we can put this out to petition.


Thanks,
-Dave


___
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] Admission for Committee Members

[Steve Gibbard]

Speaking only for myself, and not in any official capacity...

I think Dave's idea has merit.  There is precedent for it -- we give  
free conference admission to speakers -- so to me the question here is  
not whether any contribution should merit free admission, but where  
the line should be drawn.


That said, is there a reason to put this in the bylaws?  The bylaws  
are currently silent on the subject of conference fees, meaning the  
board can set them however it wants.  If the board were to enact  
something like this, it would have a lot of flexibility to vary the  
discounts and elligibility, based on what sorts of incentives were  
needed and how much money was available.  If this went in as a bylaw  
ammendment, changing it later would be cumbersome.


-Steve



On Aug 31, 2011, at 10:30 AM, David Temkin  wrote:


All,

I would like to propose an amendment to the bylaws for the coming  
election cycle.


The various committees put in many tireless hours of effort to bring  
a content rich, well attended, well sponsored meeting to our  
attendees.  In return they generally get a free lunch and a brief  
thank you.  I propose that any committee member who attends six or  
more committee meetings between NANOG meetings is entitled to a free  
registration for the upcoming meeting. Attendance would be gauged by  
the chair of the committee and this would only be available as a  
benefit to sanctioned committees.


I'll keep this short and sweet, however I feel that this is the  
least that we can do for our hard working committee members.  I  
would ask that the Board sponsor this for the upcoming election,  
however if they choose not to I think we can put this out to petition.


Thanks,
-Dave


___
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] Admission for Committee Members

[David Temkin]

On Sep 1, 2011, at 8:54 PM, Daniel Golding wrote:
> 
> Rather, the loss of revenue to the organization and the
> potential drama around the arrangements are pretty significant. 
> 
> - Daniel Golding


Possible, and I would expect the board to do their own financial analysis of 
the impact of this before either standing behind it or speaking against it.  
There are certainly other possibilities here- discounted registration?  etc.  
To me this is about recognizing those that put in 50+ hours a year in support 
of the organization in a way that, in my theory, a relatively cost-neutral 
impact.

-Dave



___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Admission for Committee Members

[Pete Templin]

On 8/31/11 10:30 AM, David Temkin wrote:


The various committees put in many tireless hours of effort to bring
a content rich, well attended, well sponsored meeting to our
attendees.  In return they generally get a free lunch and a brief
thank you.  I propose that any committee member who attends six or
more committee meetings between NANOG meetings is entitled to a free
registration for the upcoming meeting. Attendance would be gauged by
the chair of the committee and this would only be available as a
benefit to sanctioned committees.


My (outside looking in) concern is that some of the said meetings would 
potentially occur after the desired registration window.  Assuming 
that's the case, perhaps it's done as [attend enough meetings for 
NANOGX] => [get reward at NANOGX+1].


As a past PCer, I was happy doing it at no reward, but work was willing 
to send me to 2/year at the time.


pt


___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Admission for Committee Members

[Joe Provo]

On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 07:56:20PM -0400, Dorian Kim wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 11:30:49AM -0400, David Temkin wrote:
> > All,
> > 
> > I would like to propose an amendment to the bylaws for the coming election 
> > cycle.  
> > 
> > The various committees put in many tireless hours of effort to bring a 
> > content rich, well attended, well sponsored meeting to our attendees.  In 
> > return they generally get a free lunch and a brief thank you.  I propose 
> > that any committee member who attends six or more committee meetings 
> > between NANOG meetings is entitled to a free registration for the upcoming 
> > meeting. Attendance would be gauged by the chair of the committee and this 
> > would only be available as a benefit to sanctioned committees. 
> > 
> > I'll keep this short and sweet, however I feel that this is the least that 
> > we can do for our hard working committee members.  I would ask that the 
> > Board sponsor this for the upcoming election, however if they choose not to 
> > I think we can put this out to petition.
> 
> Speaking strictly as an individual, I don't believe this is necessary at all.
> 
> While I thank those who work hard by volunteering, most of those individuals 
> would be
> attending NANOG regardless. 



-- 
 RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE / NewNOG

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Admission for Committee Members

[Daniel Golding]

On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 7:49 PM, John Springer  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

Re: [Nanog-futures] Admission for Committee Members

[David Temkin]

Thanks John, very constructive input.  I advise you to review the latest
numbers instead of going off of a projection done well over a year ago as
part of an outdated proposal.

As you know, I am merely suggesting this get put out to vote.  My vote
counts for no more than yours does, like any good representative democracy.

-Dave
 On Sep 1, 2011 7:49 PM, "John Springer"  wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> I accidently the whole idea that these folks need to be incented. Am I
> doing it wrong?
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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'.
>
> 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.
>
> But the whole thing seems a bit off to me.
>
> John Springer
>
>>
>> On Aug 31, 2011, at 11:30 AM, David Temkin wrote:
>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> I would like to propose an amendment to the bylaws for the coming
election cycle.
>>>
>>> The various committees put in many tireless hours of effort to bring a
content rich, well attended, well sponsored meeting to our attendees. In
return they generally get a free lunch and a brief thank you. I propose that
any committee member who attends six or more committee meetings between
NANOG meetings is entitled to a free registration for the upcoming meeting.
Attendance would be gauged by the chair of the committee and this would only
be available as a benefit to sanctioned committees.
>>>
>>> I'll keep this short and sweet, however I feel that this is the least
that we can do for our hard working committee members. I would ask that the
Board sponsor this for the upcoming election, however if they choose not to
I think we can put this out to petition.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> -Dave
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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 mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Admission for Committee Members

[Dorian Kim]

On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 11:30:49AM -0400, David Temkin wrote:
> All,
> 
> I would like to propose an amendment to the bylaws for the coming election 
> cycle.  
> 
> The various committees put in many tireless hours of effort to bring a 
> content rich, well attended, well sponsored meeting to our attendees.  In 
> return they generally get a free lunch and a brief thank you.  I propose that 
> any committee member who attends six or more committee meetings between NANOG 
> meetings is entitled to a free registration for the upcoming meeting. 
> Attendance would be gauged by the chair of the committee and this would only 
> be available as a benefit to sanctioned committees. 
> 
> I'll keep this short and sweet, however I feel that this is the least that we 
> can do for our hard working committee members.  I would ask that the Board 
> sponsor this for the upcoming election, however if they choose not to I think 
> we can put this out to petition.

Speaking strictly as an individual, I don't believe this is necessary at all.

While I thank those who work hard by volunteering, most of those individuals 
would be
attending NANOG regardless. 

-dorian

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Admission for Committee Members

[John Springer]

Hi David,

I accidently the whole idea that these folks need to be incented. Am I 
doing it wrong?


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.


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.


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'.


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.


But the whole thing seems a bit off to me.

John Springer



On Aug 31, 2011, at 11:30 AM, David Temkin wrote:


All,

I would like to propose an amendment to the bylaws for the coming election 
cycle.

The various committees put in many tireless hours of effort to bring a content 
rich, well attended, well sponsored meeting to our attendees.  In return they 
generally get a free lunch and a brief thank you.  I propose that any committee 
member who attends six or more committee meetings between NANOG meetings is 
entitled to a free registration for the upcoming meeting. Attendance would be 
gauged by the chair of the committee and this would only be available as a 
benefit to sanctioned committees.

I'll keep this short and sweet, however I feel that this is the least that we 
can do for our hard working committee members.  I would ask that the Board 
sponsor this for the upcoming election, however if they choose not to I think 
we can put this out to petition.

Thanks,
-Dave


___
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 mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Admission for Committee Members

[Kevin Oberman]

On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Rose Klimovich  wrote:
> Dave, I like this idea. It will incent people to come to committee meetings. 
> This will make the Nanog meetings we all attend better and more productive.
>
> Rose Klimovich

+1

> On Aug 31, 2011, at 11:30 AM, David Temkin wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> I would like to propose an amendment to the bylaws for the coming election 
>> cycle.
>>
>> The various committees put in many tireless hours of effort to bring a 
>> content rich, well attended, well sponsored meeting to our attendees.  In 
>> return they generally get a free lunch and a brief thank you.  I propose 
>> that any committee member who attends six or more committee meetings between 
>> NANOG meetings is entitled to a free registration for the upcoming meeting. 
>> Attendance would be gauged by the chair of the committee and this would only 
>> be available as a benefit to sanctioned committees.
>>
>> I'll keep this short and sweet, however I feel that this is the least that 
>> we can do for our hard working committee members.  I would ask that the 
>> Board sponsor this for the upcoming election, however if they choose not to 
>> I think we can put this out to petition.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Dave
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>



-- 
R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer - Retired
E-mail: kob6...@gmail.com

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Admission for Committee Members

[Rose Klimovich]

Dave, I like this idea. It will incent people to come to committee meetings. 
This will make the Nanog meetings we all attend better and more productive. 

Rose Klimovich


On Aug 31, 2011, at 11:30 AM, David Temkin wrote:

> All,
> 
> I would like to propose an amendment to the bylaws for the coming election 
> cycle.  
> 
> The various committees put in many tireless hours of effort to bring a 
> content rich, well attended, well sponsored meeting to our attendees.  In 
> return they generally get a free lunch and a brief thank you.  I propose that 
> any committee member who attends six or more committee meetings between NANOG 
> meetings is entitled to a free registration for the upcoming meeting. 
> Attendance would be gauged by the chair of the committee and this would only 
> be available as a benefit to sanctioned committees. 
> 
> I'll keep this short and sweet, however I feel that this is the least that we 
> can do for our hard working committee members.  I would ask that the Board 
> sponsor this for the upcoming election, however if they choose not to I think 
> we can put this out to petition.
> 
> Thanks,
> -Dave
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Admission for Committee Members

[David Temkin]

I know, but my intention is to not make people ask for it.  If you're a 
committee member, and you've attended X number of meetings, you get it, period. 
 There'll be a tickbox during registration that says "Committee Member", etc.  
You shouldn't feel like you're taking food out of other peoples' mouths by 
having to ask for a free registration.  

-Dave

On Sep 1, 2011, at 9:39 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:

> 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


___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Admission for Committee Members

[Jared Mauch]

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

[David Temkin]

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

[Jared Mauch]

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

[David Temkin]

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.

-Dave

On Aug 31, 2011, at 11:28 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 8:30 AM, David Temkin  wrote:
>> All,
>> 
>> I would like to propose an amendment to the bylaws for the coming election 
>> cycle.
>> 
>> The various committees put in many tireless hours of effort to bring a 
>> content rich, well attended, well sponsored meeting to our attendees.  In 
>> return they generally get a free lunch and a brief thank you.  I propose 
>> that any committee member who attends six or more committee meetings between 
>> NANOG meetings is entitled to a free registration for the upcoming meeting. 
>> Attendance would be gauged by the chair of the committee and this would only 
>> be available as a benefit to sanctioned committees.
>> 
>> I'll keep this short and sweet, however I feel that this is the least that 
>> we can do for our hard working committee members.  I would ask that the 
>> Board sponsor this for the upcoming election, however if they choose not to 
>> I think we can put this out to petition.
> 
> Hmm. Six is a good number as the PC, at least, normally has exactly
> six meetings between NANOGs.
> A strong incentive for at least some to make all of the meetings.
> -- 
> R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer - Retired
> E-mail: kob6...@gmail.com


___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Admission for Committee Members

[Kevin Oberman]

On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 8:30 AM, David Temkin  wrote:
> All,
>
> I would like to propose an amendment to the bylaws for the coming election 
> cycle.
>
> The various committees put in many tireless hours of effort to bring a 
> content rich, well attended, well sponsored meeting to our attendees.  In 
> return they generally get a free lunch and a brief thank you.  I propose that 
> any committee member who attends six or more committee meetings between NANOG 
> meetings is entitled to a free registration for the upcoming meeting. 
> Attendance would be gauged by the chair of the committee and this would only 
> be available as a benefit to sanctioned committees.
>
> I'll keep this short and sweet, however I feel that this is the least that we 
> can do for our hard working committee members.  I would ask that the Board 
> sponsor this for the upcoming election, however if they choose not to I think 
> we can put this out to petition.

Hmm. Six is a good number as the PC, at least, normally has exactly
six meetings between NANOGs.
A strong incentive for at least some to make all of the meetings.
-- 
R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer - Retired
E-mail: kob6...@gmail.com

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

[Nanog-futures] Admission for Committee Members

[David Temkin]

All,

I would like to propose an amendment to the bylaws for the coming election 
cycle.  

The various committees put in many tireless hours of effort to bring a content 
rich, well attended, well sponsored meeting to our attendees.  In return they 
generally get a free lunch and a brief thank you.  I propose that any committee 
member who attends six or more committee meetings between NANOG meetings is 
entitled to a free registration for the upcoming meeting. Attendance would be 
gauged by the chair of the committee and this would only be available as a 
benefit to sanctioned committees. 

I'll keep this short and sweet, however I feel that this is the least that we 
can do for our hard working committee members.  I would ask that the Board 
sponsor this for the upcoming election, however if they choose not to I think 
we can put this out to petition.

Thanks,
-Dave


___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures