On Oct 27, 2010, at 4:41 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
> [snip]
> This document ought to contain the bare minimum number of words required to
> specify accurately what the situation is. It should not have extra clauses
> that people shouldn't worry about because they don't really mean anything. If
> th
"The mission *includes* education and outreach to the academic community" is
not the same as "The mission is education and outreach to the academic
community".
On Oct 27, 2010, at 2:36 PM, Sean Figgins wrote:
> On 10/27/10 2:50 PM, kris foster wrote:
>> The m
On Oct 27, 2010, at 2:04 PM, Brian Johnson wrote:
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: kris foster [mailto:kris.fos...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 3:50 PM
>> To: Sean Figgins
>> Cc: nanog-futures@nanog.org
>> Subject: Re:
On Oct 27, 2010, at 1:07 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.
>>
>> That being said, I'm also a bit disappointed
On Oct 27, 2010, at 1:21 PM, Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Joe Abley [mailto:jab...@hopcount.ca]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 1:15 PM
>> To: Sean Figgins
>> Cc: nanog-futures@nanog.org
>> Subject: Re: [Nanog-futures] New Membership-WG Draft
>>
>>
It is possible to differentiate things like pricing outside of the bylaws. I
think everyone is mostly in agreement that the bylaws isn't the place for
dictating fees, but is the right place for dictating how fees can be set.
Dan's point on student classes and the educational mission of this orga
the hands of the board to craft and the
current board appears to be sympathetic to students. We'll need to wait for
them to release their plan.
> For what it's worth.
>
> -Chris
>
>
>> On Oct 26, 2010, at 6:06 PM, kris foster wrote:
>>
>>>
subsections contain notation in parentheses indicating which section of the
bylaws are related or already have relevant language. For the purpose of
simplifying discussion it should be assumed that section 5 (membership) of the
bylaws do not exist.
For the Membership WG
Kris Foster, chair
NewNOG
On Oct 6, 2010, at 1:50 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> On Oct 6, 2010, at 15:25, Sean Figgins wrote:
>
>> On 10/6/10 8:42 AM, Randy Whitney wrote:
>>> As I am reading through Matt's notes since I cannot attend NANOG in
>>> person this time, I'm pondering whether it may make sense in the future
>>>
On Oct 5, 2010, at 6:37 AM, Randy Epstein wrote:
> >Yes, I think 'yes' is the right vote. I do have one major concern, but I
> >will vote 'yes' on both issues, regardless.
> > I really worry about the voter base becoming disjoint from the attendee
> > base. I think meeting attendees should get
All
To address the issue of multiple membership classes:
Why Full vs Student? It's safe to claim that individuals working professionally
differ substantially from students. This is not just financial. Future work,
initiatives, and benefits may require differentiation (e.g. student run
committe
membership structure
- work with the Governance WG on the membership definition in the bylaws
- investigate and review member benefits
- provide recommendations on maintaining a healthy group of members.
The WG as it stands now is Kris Foster, Bill Woodcock, Ren Provo, Scott Ehnert,
and Josh Sahala
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 me
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
On Jun 9, 2010, at 4:57 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 SC was disbanded, and a new election was held for
>> the new board of directors. We certainly should
On Dec 28, 2009, at 4:53 PM, Shrdlu wrote:
> robert_carl...@siemon.com wrote:
>
>> I will be out of the office starting 12/28/2009 and will not return until
>> 01/04/2010.
>>
>> I will be traveling in Asia and will be checking my emails frequently, but
>> please be aware of the time difference
On Oct 26, 2009, at 3:06 PM, Steve Gibbard wrote:
> [snip]
> Given how rare it is to find hotel lobbies in the US or Canada, or
> even in
> Europe, that still allow smoking, it doesn't seem like it would be
> difficult to adopt a policy of only holding NANOG meetings in non-
> smoking
> hotels
Hi everyone
The MLC will be modifying the warning process to better reflect how
the list is managed. The current policy can be found at:
http://www.nanog.org/mailinglist/warningpolicy.php
The two changes are:
==
4. Reminders.
Informal reminders may be sent by the MLC privately to individual
On May 15, 2009, at 8:03 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> The NANOG list got hit this morning by spam from facebook, using
> the forged address of a subscriber.
It was more likely someone importing their contact list indiscriminately
> This does have a useful side effect: anyone who works for these
>
On May 12, 2009, at 7:32 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
>
> On May 12, 2009, at 9:10 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
>> some 'action'. That action is usually like using reload as a
>> workaround to a hardware problem instead of replacing the buggy code.
>> The result is what we keep discussing: same stuff d
On May 1, 2009, at 5:20 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
>
> --
> Some more on topic ( before it drifts again ).
>
> The regular thread from people complaining about sending email to
> yahoo
> or the latest virus or some weird Japanese emails, or some r
On May 1, 2009, at 2:03 PM, Steve Feldman wrote:
> What bugs me is when these degenerate into long-lived off-topic
> threads, and that's where I'd like to see the MLC's effort focused.
This causes a fair bit of pain (from what a number of people have told
me, and my own opinion). I'd be happy
On Apr 7, 2009, at 8:12 PM, Gadi Evron wrote:
> Is it possible to form a basic policy to preface thread moderation?
> Example would be:
> 1. Email mailing list on the thread, asking for people to respond
> only if there is an operational content they wish to share, or
> refrain from doing so.
discussion on nanog-futures and always welcome email at
adm...@nanog.org
.
Kris Foster
MLC Chair
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Agreed as well
Kris
(not speaking as MLC)
On Sep 25, 2008, at 11:48 AM, Koch, Christian wrote:
> Agreed.
>
> I've disabled nanog-l delivery until the nonsense stops.
>
> It's just flat out annoying now
>
> -Christian
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Pete Templin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
25 matches
Mail list logo
