RE: [NON-OPERATIONAL] Re: NANOG Evolution
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Daniel Golding Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 1:30 PM To: Randy Bush; Betty Burke Cc: nanog@merit.edu; nanog-support@merit.edu Subject: [NON-OPERATIONAL] Re: NANOG Evolution
Randy,
People's employers are posted at http://www.nanog.org/candidates05.html.
It gets a bit complicated because some folks work at "infrastructure" companies - collocation/peering or DNS (Mark, Bill, Josh, Marty).
It shouldn't be complicated. I think "members" are looking for Operator experience. I don't think it's too hard to make that easily discernable as long as it's fair. One thing that nags me a bit is we're not doing this at an actual NANOG meeting. Candidates don't get to discuss their qualifications and make a pitch to get elected. It's hard to determine if "someone" is suitable for the responsibilities if you cannot hear/see/get a feel for where they are coming from. This goes to leveling of the playing field. You may have a cruddy bio, but be a great candidate, and vice versa. How do you propose we get out the information as to why we should be elected to represent the group at large? [ 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. -M<
It shouldn't be complicated. I think "members" are looking for Operator experience. I don't think it's too hard to make that easily discernable as long as it's fair.
Different people will look for different things. That's why we're having an election, instead of just having Merit appoint the six people who have the highest value of some specific measurable quality X.
How do you propose we get out the information as to why we should be elected to represent the group at large?
There's a mailing list for this. Betty announced it last week, I can't remember off the top of my head. I think it was pre-populated with the list of eligible voters. (I hope there's a way to get off, for those who may not want to receive "campaign ads". 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. There are some definite bootstrap issues with moving to the new governance structure, but what we heard in Seattle and on the lists was that this proposal, while maybe not perfect, was acceptable.
[ 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. Starting in October, the SC gets to replace up to half of the PC every year if they wish. In the meantime, the PC still has a job to do, and this charter provides a framework for this to happen. I would like to see the wording in the charter improved (I think it was better in the draft), but the only constraints on the SC that I see are: - This year, the SC must retain at least half of the current 16 PC members. - In subsequent years, those PC members whose terms are expiring may be replaced (or must be, if they hit their term limits.) - The SC has full discretion this year to decide which of the PC members are appointed for one-year vs. two-year terms. - I'm stuck as PC chair until next spring, which appears to have the side effect that they can't fire me in October. I will, however, offer my resignation to the SC if they ask me to. Steve
There's a mailing list for this. Betty announced it last week, I can't remember off the top of my head. I think it was pre-populated with the list of eligible voters. (I hope there's a way to get off, for those who may not want to receive "campaign ads".
It's nanog-elections@merit.edu. Everyone who was subscribed to nanog-futures has been added, and we'll soon (today) add all the eligible voters listed at www.nanog.org/voters05.html. To cover all bases, there's subscription info here: www.nanog.org/email.html It would be *great* if we could move this discussion over there.
Hannigan, Martin wrote:
It shouldn't be complicated. I think "members" are looking for Operator experience. I don't think it's too hard to make that easily discernable as long as it's fair.
Members aren't looking for Operator experience (sic). Members are looking for talks that do not suck. /vijay
It shouldn't be complicated. I think "members" are looking for Operator experience. I don't think it's too hard to make that easily discernable as long as it's fair. Members aren't looking for Operator experience (sic). Members are looking for talks that do not suck.
i think you mean to s/members/meeting attendees/ which is a small subset of those with a stake in nanog. randy
participants (5)
-
Hannigan, Martin -
Randy Bush -
Steve Feldman -
Susan Harris -
vijay gill