[Nanog-futures] New Membership-WG Draft

Joe Abley jabley at hopcount.ca
Wed Oct 27 23:41:04 UTC 2010


On 2010-10-27, at 17:43, Sean Figgins wrote:

> Probably.  4.1 is loose enough that those that want to join may join, 
> however I believe it is a good definition.

I don't understand "probably, and I don't understand "loose enough".

What is the rationale for trying to restrict membership to those who qualify as network engineers? To seek to do that opens up the near-impossible task of trying to define a network engineer.

If there is no such rationale, then we don't need 4.1 at all. Strike it.

> I also believe that membership definition is required for the 
> organization under US non-profit regulation.  If we do not have 4.1, 
> then we fall back to 1.1, which basically states the same thing.  In 
> order to be a member, you have to have an interest in Network 
> Operations.  This is the same spirit, if not the same language.

How about we put qualifications in if we know definitively that they are needed, and not because we suspect that maybe they might be?

> If we do, at some point, have Orchid enthusiasts invading NewNOG, and 
> trying to steer the organization towards their interest, this language 
> allows us to eject those members.  Assuming that they don't also meet 
> the Network Operations requirements.  Of course, it could be a network 
> of Orchid distributors...

If NANOG in the future for some reason grew to include a majority of people who wanted to stop talking about network operations and instead talk about orchids, then I think the right approach is to let the majority speak and change the focus, not to kick those people out.

> People should not sweat this language.  It won't really exclude anyone 
> from being a member if they have an interest in being a member.

That would certainly be the case if it wasn't there.

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 the clause isn't pertinent, scratch it out.


Joe


More information about the Nanog-futures mailing list