[Nanog-futures] Final bylaws proposal

Joe Provo nanog-fut at rsuc.gweep.net
Sun Oct 3 13:19:11 UTC 2010

On Sat, Oct 02, 2010 at 11:20:42PM -0700, Duane Wessels wrote:
> On Oct 2, 2010, at 8:31 PM, Daniel Golding wrote:
> > Or maybe someone from the steering committee can step up and comment. That would be refreshing.
> I'll bite, but I think Steve Gibbard already said most of what I'd say.


> The membership working group was asked to come up with a membership
> plan, and that work has been done.  We are now at the point where
> its time to vote on it.

Yes; work was delegated and in we didn't micromanage it.
> I think the discussion here is healthy and I very much appreciate
> it.

Agreed; I was thinking it odd that membership stuff was cribbed from 
the IEEE but odd in the "strange coloured luggage we may never use"
sense.  Since my colleagues though it mattered and I have unused 
luggage at home which doesn't seem to harm my travel, I focused on 
more compelling matters.   If this is the strongest complaint then
I think we've done well.

> Regardless what happens next I'd like to thank those that worked on
> it for taking the time and sticking their necks out.

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 eliding any contentious bits post-ratification since
this next-stage bylaws keeps that board ability just for such fixes.


             RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE

More information about the Nanog-futures mailing list