[MLB-WIRELESS] AWA

[rick]

i know its simple but

a> people who have attended meetings
b> people who have a nod of some sort running,


----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven Haigh" <netwiz at optushome.com.au>
To: <melbwireless at www.wireless.org.au>; "Clae" <clae13 at yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 1:25 AM
Subject: Re: [MLB-WIRELESS] AWA


> 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
>