What I meant by that was a person who pays for their membership as opposed to one who is given it might have a bit more interest in the organization. A stake holder so to speak. Just a thought. We have different types of membership now in place with varying levels of benefits. Again just brainstorming what a Corporate membership would be.
John J. Boris, Sr. >>> <da...@lang.hm> 4/9/2012 1:46 PM >>> On Mon, 9 Apr 2012, John BORIS wrote: > The talk about Corporate memberships is fine with me but we would have > to setup a structure for that. A dues paying member gets voting rights > and can run for a spot on the board. There should be some distinction on > that. Why should it matter if the member is paying the dues out of their own pocket (with or without reimbursement from their employer), or if their employer is paying the dues directly? Yes, companies could try to game the system by paying employee memebership dues and trying to get those employees to all vote one way, but does banning corporate memberships really prevent this? Is it worth the hassles of creating, maintaining, and explaining a second-class membership for the slight speed bump that this would put in the way of any company that was inclined to do this sort of thing? David Lang _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.lopsa.org https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
