[svlug] ISSUE: SVLUG's continued status with SBAY

J. Paul Reed preed at svlug.org
Thu Feb 16 00:50:16 PST 2006

On 15 Feb 2006 at 18:12:37, Ian Kluft arranged the bits on my disk to say:

> 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..."

SIG leaders shouldn't have to ask, Ian.

These changes (specifically the DNS changes) should be coordinated with
everyone, not unilaterally decided upon and performed by SBAY. There is no
justifiable reason that I can see for diverting from this.

This is yet another illustration of my primary argument against remaining a
part of SBAY: unreasonable loss of autonomy.

> 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 owner is "Thunder.net Communications."

[preed at moby ~]$ whois svlug.org| grep Organ
Registrant Organization:Thunder.Net Communications
Admin Organization:Thunder.Net Communications
Tech Organization:Thunder.Net Communications

I don't know why the organizational assistance was never provided to change
this to "SBAY" or "SVLUG" in the past eighteen months SVLUG has been a SIG
of SBAY.

> 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.

My position has always been that this is an internal SVLUG issue, for
SVLUG's members to decide.

Given the previous statements and not one, but *two* threats of removal for
a random grasp of different reasons (but most importantly, for merely
raising this issue to SVLUG's membership), I was weary of allowing SBAY to
control the initial presentation of the issue.

I think most people would understand that fear, and I tried really my best
to not present a position, but frame the issue.  That didn't work out so
well, especially in the Q/A part, mostly because it left people with lots
of questions. I would've done that differently if I had it to do over

Anyway, SBAY's position on the matter is an important component to the
discussion. It shouldn't overshadow members' discussion, but it's an
important component and I'm glad it's now part of the discussion record.

My goal is for SVLUG to make an informed decision and SBAY's statement is
helpful towards that end.

> 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.

Please be clear: the method and the timing of holding a vote on this issue
has never been discussed, nor announced.

You may be referring to the original email where I said "I think it's
possible to discuss the issue enough to hold a vote. If SVLUG members still
have this concern, we can handle it, by a voice-vote, at the next meeting
and extend the discussion period to the April meeting."

The "voice-vote" clearly refers to "voting about whether or not to have a
vote at the March meeting or extend the discussion period to the April

I have just asked volunteers@ how the original vote was held; I think that
will provide good perspective, if not an outright methodology, for holding
this vote.

> sbay.org's board has assembled pro- and con- arguments and rebuttals
> (as you'd expect from a real ballot initiative) at
>    http://corp.sbay.org/board/svlug-sbay-20060213.html

I'd like to thank SBAY's board for doing this; I've been asked by a few
members what SBAY's position is. I expected there to be some input on the
mailing list from SBAY during the discussion, and now there's something to
refer to, in a familiar format.

This is really good.  I'll provide a rebuttal shortly.

I'd like to ask SBAY to change the link to "message from Paul Reed and
SVLUG Core Volunteers."

That email was reviewed by and agreed upon by the majority of the core
volunteers I sent it to, and that presentation of the email implies that
it's my position and my position alone. 

It's true that it's my position, but I am not alone among the volunteers
who make SVLUG... go every month.


Silicon Valley Linux Users' Group
preed at svlug.org

More information about the svlug mailing list