nization 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 satis
I can't speak for the board, but as I understand it, it will probably
be DBA (doing business as). The expense of going back and redoing all
the work is just too much. Hopefully, we'll only see NewNOG used on
legal documents from now on
Dan
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Brian Johnson wrote
But...but...but - that's almost like we're living in 2011 or something!
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Randy Epstein wrote:
> Dan,
>
>>And, as was stated, better payment modalities are being explored.
> That's the TL;DR.
>
> I've said this for some years now, and I think now more than ever my id
And, as was stated, better payment modalities are being explored.
That's the TL;DR.
Full Explanation:
An association management vendor RFP is about to kick off, led by
Sylvie. One of the key attributes of such an organization is the
ability to offer a multi-tenant membership management system - a
Congrats to Betty! i think NANOG really prospered as a Merit program with
Betty as program manager.
BTW...what does "interim" mean in this context?
- Dan
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 12:46 AM, Steven Feldman wrote:
> I am pleased to announce that the NewNOG board has chosen Betty Burke
> to serve a
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 8:57 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> bottom line: i do not think you should be disappointed in a model that
> is conservative and estimates 200 paying members. i will be happy to
> be wrong.
>
> randy
>
This.
If we get 500 members, I'll be really happy. But if we get 200, it
ry (Berkeley Lab)
> E-mail: ober...@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634
> Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751
>
> > Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 13:54:10 -0500
> > From: Daniel Golding
> >
> > The math works out in funding. The
The math works out in funding. The membership line item is not a huge
revenue item for the organization after year 2. Still, it does need to be
big enough to provide buy-in, as you said.
I'm sort of split on this. There certainly needs to be a discount, and folks
who are members and attend all thr
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Sean Figgins wrote:
> On 10/27/10 1:02 PM, Daniel Golding wrote:
> >
> > I suspect the board will set some kind of a discount for students.
> > Personally, I would support a very large discount for full time students.
> >
> >
Suggestion: Strike "if retired".
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Simon Lyall wrote:
> 4.1 (new) Members are required to be active within the Internet
> network operations community by way of current employment or previous
> employment if retired, participation in industry forums, academic
>
I suspect the board will set some kind of a discount for students.
Personally, I would support a very large discount for full time students.
That being said, I'm also a bit disappointed that the specific student
membership didn't survive. I think the educational mission is extremely
important from
2010/10/5 Randy Epstein
>
>
>
> What worries me more is the lack of voter participation from the eligible
> voters. I really think this needs to be addressed in the upcoming year,
> possibly even going as far as putting an asterisk next to those who have
> voted in the previous election on the e
> personally, i am not strongly against it, but am sceptical. it may get
> a cash infusion now, but what will it do to income down the road when
> folk don't need to renew? [0]
>
What Jay said is 100% correct. Let me expound a bit on the topic.
When someone pays $1000 for life membership now, th
eks ago received quite a bit of
> feedback. There were changes made to reflect this input. This was largely
> removing unnecessary complexity which reduced the text by 50%.
>
> The questions to ask now are:
> * Are the bylaws functional?
> * Can they be fixed if there are issues? For
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 9:19 AM, Joe Provo wrote:
>
>
> Very much so.
>
> I'm not sure if the voting system we're piggybacking on allows for
> the segmentation Randy suggested, but we'll check with Merit on that
> count. If not then I'd think it more than reasonable to have the
> board commit to
LOL. It can't work both ways. Either this is a coup put on by a few control
freaks or its a mess because a whole bunch of people were involved. Maybe
its both!
Perhaps someone from the membership group can speak up and let us know how
they came to the decisions that they did - I'm working from se
I think your comments are a bit harsh on students, especially " I don't
see any value to NANOG, though, as most students lack any experience in
inter-networking, or common sense, for that matter."
This really depends on what the mission of the organization is. A vehicle to
do NANOG conferences? A
That was the whole point of student membership - to provide a discount. $100
is very pricey for almost all students.
For the curious - the membership structure is a simplified and "borrowed"
version of the IEEE membership structure.
- Dan
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 1:19 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
> > y
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 -
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 wrote:
>
> On 2010-09-20, at 11:02, Daniel Golding wrote:
>
>> The age requirement to be a fellow is more applicab
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 fin
You can have a professionally run conference without making it a
pay-for-play vendor dominated event. Its not even hard to do.
- Dan
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Jay Hennigan wrote:
> On 7/1/10 11:53 AM, Daniel Golding wrote:
>
>> The way forward is to have sharp cut-off from hav
Clearly, thats not what anyone is talking about. We are not, as a
rule, academics. We also need a funding model.
We have a wide range of folks, from technical staff to senior
management attend NANOG.
- Dan
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 6:53 PM, Sean Figgins wrote:
> On 7/1/10 2:50 PM, Randy Bush wrote
Well, there is one bright line that (I think) everyone can agree with
- a permanent and hard separation of sponsorship and program. To the
point where people who handle the sponsorships must not be on the
program committee and vice-versa.
Pay-for-play is fine at a certain sort of conference, but n
This is a very long email, so I can't reply to all of it, but here's a try.
In terms of "room parties" - at regular conferences, those are called
Hospitality Suites and sponsors pay for the privilege of having them.
Or, the privilege is inherited as part of a high-lvel sponsorship.
Either way. (I
Just an update on the budget - a more detailed budget is in the works.
We had a brief delay in getting the Finance committee mailing list
running, but now that we have it, work is progressing. I'm generating
a new revision of the budget this week, and I'll run it by the
committee on Thursday during
(Catching up to Steve...)
The NANOG/NewNOG Budget and Finance Working Group has been formed to
provide financial guidance and budget planning to the Board of
Directors, especially the NewNog Treasurer, Duane Wessels.
So far, B/F WG members include:
- Dan Golding, Managing Director, DH Capital (C
There may also be extra sensitivities about webcasting the security track -
some of those guys do not like being webcast
- Dan
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 9:39 AM, Steve Feldman wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2010, at 9:16 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> >> For those interested, the "NANOG Transition Plan" sessi
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-
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
Disclaimer: not a member of the SC/BoD, just talking out of my backside. If
this sucks, tell me to STFU.
One aspect of this that I have lobbied for is actual voting membership. The
current "membership" structure was never really ideal - basically, you were
a member if you attended a conference onc
I think using the same policies and the same election procedures is the
right thing to do.
- Dan
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 7:57 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
>
> On 2010-06-09, at 07:08, Sean Figgins wrote:
>
> > I would think that there may also me less apprehension if as part of
> > incorporating, THIS S
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
>
> For those who will not be able to attend and hear the update in person
> (e.g. we have a root zone to sign), it'd be nice to know that there will be
>
>
Bah! Its as if there would be some kind of negative security connotation for
the entire Int
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Jay Hennigan wrote:
>
>
> We are members of a community. Some our leaders are proposing to make a
> very significant change in the governance of that community. Others
> involved in the governance of the community state that they were not
> informed of, and that
It would probably be best done in conjunction with the next election.
2010/6/2 Martin Hannigan
>
>
> On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 3:01 AM, Andy Davidson wrote:
>
>>
>> On 28 May 2010, at 08:15, Steve Feldman wrote:
>>
>> > The Transition Team would like to assure everyone that we are working
>> hard
As I understand it, there is no merit nanog account. While such has
been talked about, it is evidently a myth.
Daniel Golding
Sent from my iPhone
On May 29, 2010, at 12:52 PM, Steve Feldman
wrote:
>> I'm also curious about the financial story here. If the
>> corporat
he community was informed.
Now, its time to stand up and figure out how it will all work. I think
that's going to require much more than the SC. Now is the time to volunteer.
- Daniel Golding, speaking only for himself.
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
37 matches
Mail list logo
