North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical


  • From: Steve Feldman
  • Date: Mon Jun 20 20:34:59 2005

> 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.