A couple comments...
The age requirement to be a fellow is more applicable to IEEE than
NANOG. Also, we don't know how old anyone is - the only observable
data available is % of grey hair and degree of grouchiness, both of
which are sadly inexact.
I think there should be a codified budget and
The NewNOG governance working group, chaired by Steve Gibbard, has published
a set of proposed bylaws for the corporation. These may be found at:
If these issues have been resolved and I missed them, apologies in advance.
Would you elaborate on 5.1 Membership Qualifications:
... who by
Steve, overall good job. A few comments:
1. On life members, not sure you want to include that this is 10x membership in
the bylaws since the fee here could change over time.
2. I think we do need a finance committee since you have this on most boards.
3. On legislation, I think if the
Agree with both Joe Abley's recommendation for limited number of fellows (no
more than one per meeting) nominated perhaps via the same method as PC
nominations?
Agree with Rose Klimovich's concerns as well regarding a finance committee
for eventual audits. -ren
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 12:55 PM,
Thanks for all the feedback received so far (and I'm sure there will be
much more, which will also be very welcome).
The membership section of this is a product of the Membership Working
Group, chaired by Kris Foster. Everything else in the bylaws came from
the Governance Working Group. I'll
Agree 100% with Joe.
I think that determining who gets the nod might be a good task for the
Membership Committee.
- Dan
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 12:55 PM, Joe Abley jab...@hopcount.ca wrote:
On 2010-09-20, at 11:02, Daniel Golding wrote:
The age requirement to be a fellow is more applicable
Just as an FYI - a lot of the membership stuff got cribbed from IEEE
(thanks, IEEE guys!), as they are a related group and there's no need
to reinvent the wheel. That being said, there will be a few cases like
this, where we'll need to clean up the verbiage. There is nothing
actually implied here
