Re: [Nanog-futures] Admission for Committee Members
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/listinfo/nanog-futures
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
Re: [Nanog-futures] Admission for Committee Members
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Wessels, Duane dwess...@verisign.comwrote: 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
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
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:45 PM, Wessels, Duane dwess...@verisign.comwrote: 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
On 9/30/11 10:28 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Wessels, Duane dwess...@verisign.com 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
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 1:28 AM, Steven Feldman feld...@nanog.org 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
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 d...@temk.in 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 d...@temk.in 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 mailto:Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org mailto: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
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 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
Re: [Nanog-futures] Admission for Committee Members
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
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 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. 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
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
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 dav...@gmail.com 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
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
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 7:49 PM, John Springer sprin...@inlandnet.com 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
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. /aol -- 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
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 8:30 AM, David Temkin 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. 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
