John, Membership to LOPSA comes in a variety of ways and I don't agree with your assessment that some channels of becoming a member are worth more or less than others. To further validate this point, consider some of the ways people currently become members of LOPSA:
- Members who sign themselves up and pay the $50 out of their own pocket (these are the people you feel should be full-fledged members) - Members who seek out membership through their employer, who pays for their annual membership dues. - Members who obtain membership by attending one of the conferences sponsored by LOPSA As the chair of PICC I'm sure you are well aware that one of the largest (if not the largest?) sources of new members for LOPSA recently has been through paid attendance at a LOPSA sponsored conference. Would you suggest that people who obtain their membership through these conferences be given a full membership that includes voting rights? I, myself, have kept my membership active the last two years by attending PICC (furthered by the fact that my employer paid for my attendance). Under your set of conditions, should I be given voting rights for the board of directors? It is my opinion that membership to LOPSA should be fair and equal across the board, no matter how the person obtained their membership. LOPSA needs to ensure their membership is inclusive of anybody that wishes to be more involved in the sys admin community, no matter how they became a member of LOPSA. This is whats best for LOPSA as well as the sys admin community. If somebody in our industry wants to be active within LOPSA, I see no reason to exclude them based upon the fact that their employer or colleague paid for their membership dues. Just my 2 cents... On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 1:51 PM, John BORIS <jbo...@adphila.org> wrote: > 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/ >
_______________________________________________ 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/
