I think that the earlier message hit the nail on the head:
We're a professional society, like ACM, not an advocacy organization like ISOC.
Maybe having the "core" LOPSA organization be activist is a square
peg/round hole problem. I know that advocacy was one of the sticking
points that was discussed often during our long struggle for
tax-exempt status.
Maybe advocacy (for now) is something that we should each take on
personally, via true advocacy groups, and not LOPSA.
That doesn't mean that LOPSA can't take positions, but perhaps they
should be on technical issues ("IPv6 is good"), not social and
political issues.
And.... what's our true goal in taking advocacy positions? It seems
that this started not as advocacy for advocacy's sake, but as a way to
gain visibility for LOPSA. If that's the case, then let's look at
other methods to gain visibility, if social advocacy isn't a good fit
for us.
--tep
ps. That isn't to say that LOPSA can't take on advocacy, maybe just
not now. Some non-profits like ourselves have created separate
semi-independent foundations to take on those roles that are
potentially inconsistent with the core organization's tax status. But
that's not for now.
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators
http://lopsa.org/
