[MLB-WIRELESS] AWA

[Steven Haigh]

One thing that struck me when I was consulting people regarding this
decision.

* How do we define our members? *

Well, is it our mailing list? Is it our node database? Is it a members list
somewhere? Is it the MelbWirelessPeople list on the Wiki?

I simply couldn't answer this question. I then consulted who I had seen
contribute the most. We still have no clear definition of members. We do
however have the idea to have an "electoral database" of sorts where people
wishing to vote on issues register as Voting Members - which would enable
proxy voting etc... This is outside the scope of what we are trying to
implement on Fridays meeting, but will follow in the near future.

As you can see from the policy draft just posted
(http://www.wireless.org.au/~netwiz/policy.htm), our aims have not changed.
We have made clear in this policy draft exactly what we mean by Free Public
Broadband. Until now, this has not been spelt out in black and white.

Signed,
Steven Haigh

The Internet was designed by the American Military back in the late 60's. It
was designed to be a decentralised information delivery system so that in
the event of a nuclear attack, American Military leaders would still have
access to pornography.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Clae" <clae13 at yahoo.com>
To: <melbwireless at www.wireless.org.au>
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 12:06 AM
Subject: [MLB-WIRELESS] AWA


> It semms to me that the decision, right or wrong, to not affiliate
> with AWA was made without recourse to the bulk of the members of
> wireless.org.au.
>
> It seems to me that AWA are still working out their operating
> principles, and it is premature of us to make such a stance.  My
> impression of reading the above is that they are well-intentioned,
> and that their description of themselves as a "closed" network, when
> read in context, was an attempt to clarify their legal position vis a
> vis internet traffic, which may be made redundant in light of further
> communication from the relevant departments about the carrier license
> requirements on non-profit groups.
>
> It seems to me that the broader membership of melbwireless will be
> much more likely to get involved in admin and tech work if these kind
> of decisions are discussed publicly before they are made.  It is
> somewhat disconcerting to see this kind of announcement come out of
> the blue.
>
> This is not a technical issue, it involves our goals and our
> relationship with another group, so it is quintessentially the kind
> of decision which should be opened up to the mailing list and/or
> meetings for discussion, as it involves all of us, and our
> representation to another group.  I applaud the fact that it is
> tabled on the agenda for the next meeting.
>
>  From their reply: "any decision of large proportion must be voted
> upon by the member base"
>
> Clae.
>
> To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo at wireless.org.au
> with "unsubscribe melbwireless" in the body of the message
>


To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo at wireless.org.au
with "unsubscribe melbwireless" in the body of the message