[MLB-WIRELESS] AWA

[rick]

not vote per nod, vote if you are attached to a active nod (max one vote)

and this meeting i will take down a roll call which will be kept for the
meeting commitie and will be avalible to other commities after filling out a
c4 form in tripplicat and then a j17 form and posting it to every one who
possibly may have went to the meeting

or i will just keep it on a zip disk, which is ever easyer


----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven Haigh" <netwiz at optushome.com.au>
To: <melbwireless at www.wireless.org.au>
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 10:52 AM
Subject: Re: [MLB-WIRELESS] AWA


> Not exactly that easy...
>
> a) We don't have a record of who has attended the meetings
> b) define some sort? Registered? Running? Building? one vote per node?
this
> will give one person more than one vote - not exacly fair...
>
> 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: "rick" <mibz at optushome.com.au>
> To: "Steven Haigh" <netwiz at optushome.com.au>;
> <melbwireless at www.wireless.org.au>; "Clae" <clae13 at yahoo.com>
> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 10:34 AM
> Subject: Re: [MLB-WIRELESS] AWA
>
>
> > 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
> > >
> >
>
>
> To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo at wireless.org.au
> with "unsubscribe melbwireless" in the body of the message
>