[svlug] ISSUE: SVLUG's continued status with SBAY
ikluft at thunder.sbay.org
Wed Feb 15 18:12:37 PST 2006
On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 08:57:33AM -0800, Chris Verges (chverges) wrote:
> (2) "It's not entirely clear who "Thunder.Net Communications" is..."
Note: translate "It's not entirely clear..." as "he didn't bother to ask..."
> Thunder.Net Communications is Ian Kluft. He'll have to chip in on this
> answer for us to get the full view of things, but I believe he put
> "Thunder.Net" down as the owner a long time ago [...]
That's the administrative domain which provides a set of contacts for domains
that the co-lo machine is primary DNS for. It's me and another friend who
prefers to stay out of this situation and won't be named right now.
But that's the admin contact. Take a look again at the WHOIS listing.
The "owner" is still the way Marc Merlin set it back when it was hosted
at Google. That will need to be changed with paperwork at some point -
it doesn't just happen on a domain transfer.
The DNS update was indeed to remove unresponsive nameservers.
> (5) "It's unclear what the SBAY Board would require."
Note: again translate "It's unclear..." as "he didn't bother to ask..."
> Well, there are two ways to go with this. Either ask them or assume
> like Amendment 10 does and say that all powers not specifically granted
> to the [parent organization] belong to the [SIG]. :-)
Either way is reasonable advice.
> (7) "I think the concern that you're glossing over is that while there
> may be intra-organizational issues and disagreements on how to handle
> specific issues and events (common in any organization), it's NEVER
> appropriate for
> leader(s) of a parent organization to threaten SVLUG's officers or
> volunteers ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS with removal, merely because the parent
> organization wants to stifle discussion about a particular issue."
> OK, I won't beat around the bush: Ian Kluft is both the President of
> SBAY and an active volunteer in SVLUG. The "threats" which you are
> referring to are, in my opinion, the results of misunderstandings and
> the corresponding frustrations on the part of both him and you.
There's more to that, of course. When Paul informed the Board on 1/29
that he was going to do this, he told us we would not be allowed to
present our side at an SVLUG meeting. Instead, we could give him
materials which he would review, edit and maybe present if he chose to.
We didn't go for that. Nobody would.
I did make an attempt to use the rules available in the By-Laws to force
a more open discussion process than that, starting with a meeting including
interested members to talk about what's wrong. That's the "threat" he's
referring to. Obviously he ignored it. At that point the Board performed
their advisory role that we need them to do, and advised me to back off
from that confrontation, which is so tempting at a time like that. (We're
all human.) It's interesting that Paul now claims we're trying to stifle
After his 40-minute ramble at the Feb 1 meeting, it was obvious the
members could see through all that. Things like "I motion to table this"
and "I second it" were responded with "Well, we don't use Robert's Rules
of Order." He went on for 10 more minutes! Is that open discussion?
At this point, even if you don't want to hear any more of this, it's
important to come to the Mar 1 meeting where Paul says he intends to hold
a voice vote on this. If you think this approach is not acceptable, the
way to say that is by attending and voting down the proposal.
Then let everyone (SVLUG's and sbay.org's officers) know what you want done
next. A lot of problems have been aired in not the best ways. Nonetheless,
problems have been aired. So when this unnecessary crisis is over, we'll
have to get started on solving them.
sbay.org's board has assembled pro- and con- arguments and rebuttals
(as you'd expect from a real ballot initiative) at
More information about the svlug