On 10/16/07, Jared Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 01:03:36PM -0400, Martin Hannigan wrote: > > At 60 votes, that's .6% participation. If we don't hit at least 2, we > > ought to seriously consider disbanding the current "evolution". > > If that means the disbanding of NANOG is that acceptable?
I don't see how the two are inextricably linked. There would be no reason for nanog to discontinue as a result of disbanding the bureaucracy. > > I think the numbers may slightly mislead here as Betty told > me privately the other day, roughly 30% (or was it 1/3) of attendees > do not return to nanog. That is someone that is in the voter pool that > is not likely to vote. Not intentionally. The numbers I usually use for this stuff are a superset of subscribers to the list plus digest. I believe that the 8400 list members count. We didn't need any framework or MLC to get AUP changes done. We needed some work. -M<
