[NON-OPERATIONAL] Re: NANOG Evolution
Hannigan, Martin
hannigan at verisign.com
Tue Jun 21 03:09:37 UTC 2005
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Feldman [mailto:feldman at twincreeks.net]
> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 8:34 PM
> To: Hannigan, Martin
> Cc: Daniel Golding; nanog at merit.edu; nanog-support at merit.edu
> Subject: Re: [NON-OPERATIONAL] Re: NANOG Evolution
>
>
[SNIP ]
> I agree, this is an imperfect mechanism, but there was a desire
> to get the process going well in advance of the next meeting.
> Otherwise we would have to wait a few extra months. Also, note
> that not all voters will be at any given meeting.
All the broadcast mechanisms will be.
[ SNIP ]
> > [ dead horse ]
> >
> > Lastly, "6.2.1 Program Committee Membership and Selection " is
> > not acceptable, IMO, for the group at large. It should be
> normalized
> > much like the Mailing List Admins. This disables the ability of the
> > Steering Committee to lead.
> >
> > Ultimately, the SC is elected to represent the membership and
> > carry out it's will and that should be uniformly actionable
> > across the board in order for the SC to be taken seriously
> > by the group and by Merit.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean here.
It means that it doesn't make a lot of sense to handcuff
the SC out of the gate on a supposition that they will do
'something bad' to the PC.
Anyhow, it's a window dressing handcuffing. Looks like anyone can be
removed with a 5 to 7 vote of the SC. You've all read the revised
Charter, top to bottom? Kind of makes 6.2.1 ceremonial. It should
be removed based on that alone.
[ SNIP. It's procedural, not personal ]
-M<
More information about the NANOG
mailing list