Re: [Nanog-futures] Membership, was Transition update

John, Everything up there is a placeholder - there are no "real" bylaws yet. I think you are putting the cart before the horse. I'm hoping that the previous charter-editor committee steps up and helps put together a new set of bylaws, congruent (but not identical) to the existing charter. I know t

Re: [Nanog-futures] Membership, was Transition update

Dan, According to the website, the board officially ratified the bylaws. So there are "real" bylaws. The issue here is that there is a great deal of work setting up a 501c3 organization to run NANOG and there are goals that wish to be met. All this means is that there are changes attempting to

Re: [Nanog-futures] Membership, was Transition update

Hank Kilmer wrote: > According to the website, the board officially ratified the bylaws. So > there are "real" bylaws. The issue here is that there is a great deal > of work setting up a 501c3 organization to run NANOG and there are goals > that wish to be met. All this means is that there are

Re: [Nanog-futures] Membership, was Transition update

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 09:55:13AM -0600, Sean Figgins wrote: > I believe that paid membership is the only way to actually have a real, > valid membership. Otherwise, it is just a crap shoot. The way it > currently is, we could have "members" that have no interest in NANOG as > a organization.

Re: [Nanog-futures] Membership, was Transition update

On Jun 11, 2010, at 9:05 AM, Dorian Kim wrote: > On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 09:55:13AM -0600, Sean Figgins wrote: >> I believe that paid membership is the only way to actually have a real, >> valid membership. Otherwise, it is just a crap shoot. The way it >> currently is, we could have "members

Re: [Nanog-futures] Membership, was Transition update

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Sean Figgins wrote: [ clip ] > > > I believe that paid membership is the only way to actually have a real, > valid membership. Otherwise, it is just a crap shoot. The way it > currently is, we could have "members" that have no interest in NANOG as > a organiz

Re: [Nanog-futures] Membership, was Transition update

On Fri, 11 Jun 2010, Sean Figgins wrote: > Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't 501c status take about 18 months > to get? One data point: the SIX's 501(c)(6) application was mailed on 7/3/2008 and was approved by the IRS on 9/11/2008, so it took just a little over 2 months. A 501(c)(3) may t

Re: [Nanog-futures] Membership, was Transition update

On 6/11/10 10:28 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > Who is going to pay to join a mailing list? If the membership fee were relatively low and a lifetime or long-term (like five year) it could be relatively painless. Membership would give voting rights as well as the mailing list. Say $50 lifetime mem

Re: [Nanog-futures] Membership, was Transition update

Martin Hannigan wrote: > On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Sean Figgins > wrote: > [ clip ] > I believe that paid membership is the only way to actually have a real, > valid membership. Otherwise, it is just a crap shoot. The way it > currently is, we could

Re: [Nanog-futures] Membership, was Transition update

On Jun 11, 2010, at 10:36 AM, Curtis Villamizar wrote: > > In message > kris foster writes: >> >> On Jun 11, 2010, at 9:05 AM, Dorian Kim wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 09:55:13AM -0600, Sean Figgins wrote: I believe that paid membership is the only way to actually have a real, >

Re: [Nanog-futures] Membership, was Transition update

Jay Hennigan wrote: > If the membership fee were relatively low and a lifetime or long-term > (like five year) it could be relatively painless. Membership would give > voting rights as well as the mailing list. > > Say $50 lifetime membership and increase the meeting cost by $50 for > non-member

Re: [Nanog-futures] Membership, and Transition comment

On 11 Jun 2010, at 16:55, Sean Figgins wrote: > I believe that paid membership is the only way to actually have a real, valid > membership. I agree. Make sure non North Americans can join too, please. However, I still maintain that, although I do support independence in principal, today's na

Re: [Nanog-futures] Membership, was Transition update

On 11 Jun 2010, at 18:28, Martin Hannigan wrote: > Who is going to pay to join a mailing list? I hope that nobody is expected to or even asked to, membership is something that individuals/companies can do to support the organisation, if they value it. (Which means it can't be expensive, eith

Re: [Nanog-futures] Membership, was Transition update

kris foster wrote: > If Dorian (and Sean) are not talking about governance, then I agree. > The problem on the community's plate right now is governance, and > discussion of membership in NewNOG, Inc. needs to happen. Um... I was talking about membership as a way to determine who is intereste

Re: [Nanog-futures] Membership, was Transition update

> Who is going to pay to join a mailing list? if i understand the social contract and the business plan, i am happy to pay for foux-nog membership. i pay acm membership, i get some acm publications, and i then pay to go to acm meetings. nothing new here. randy _

Re: [Nanog-futures] Membership, was Transition update

I went looking through old e-mails to see if I could figure out where the current membership system came from. The earliest e-mail I could find outlining it was this: Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 19:12:26 -0500 From: Daniel Golding To: Stephen J. Wilcox , "Hannigan, Martin" Cc: nanog-ref...@

Re: [Nanog-futures] Membership, was Transition update

Is this when I'm supposed to admit that Wilcox was right and I was wrong? How much is Wilcox paying you, Gibbard?! No! Ok, I admit it - Steve Wilcox was right and I was wrong :) Daniel Golding On Jun 11, 2010, at 5:59 PM, Steve Gibbard wrote: > I went looking through old e-mails to se

Re: [Nanog-futures] Membership, was Transition update

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010, Martin Hannigan wrote: > Who is going to pay to join a mailing list? If there's a lively and active nanog-jobs@ list? Or a nanog-but-for-really- operational-only stuff, with chat silently redirected to nanog-chat by active moderation? etc, etc. Hypothetically speaking, if I

Re: [Nanog-futures] Membership, was Transition update

On Sat, Jun 12, 2010, Adrian Chadd wrote: > Hypothetically speaking, if I were currently engaged in this business, > I'd pay. Both for the ability to ask questions and the ability to be asked > questions by a sensible group of people with similar goals (ie, non-trolling) > in mind[1]. And to foll