Ah, you're right! http://governance.lopsa.org/LOPSA_Policies/Membership_classes
I was mistaken. On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 9:54 PM, <da...@lang.hm> wrote: > I could be mistaken as well, but as I read it, the only difference was the > price, contingent on showing full-time school registration. > > David Lang > > > On Mon, 9 Apr 2012, Matt Simmons wrote: > > I don't believe that student members are able to hold office or vote, but >> I >> could be wrong. >> >> On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 3:20 PM, <da...@lang.hm> wrote: >> >> Currently the only difference in benefits between the different >>> membership >>> classes is the 'vanity' factor of being able to claim 'charter' or >>> 'founder' status, all other variations have to do with discounts on the >>> annual dues. >>> >>> David Lang >>> >>> >>> On Mon, 9 Apr 2012, John BORIS wrote: >>> >>> Evan, >>> >>>> I agree with what you and Dave are saying. I took a look at our >>>> membership page to see what the difference was for the varied types of >>>> memberships. So I figured if we added a corporate membership type maybe >>>> there should be something different in the benefits. Otherwise then why >>>> have the different distinction. My mention of voting was just a sticky >>>> note on the wall of ideas in a brainstorm session. (Good idea, Bad >>>> Idea, food for thought?) I guess my words could be classified as bad >>>> idea from what I have heard. So if we were in a room right now I'd be >>>> walking to the front and removing my sticky. >>>> >>>> I do understand that we give a membership with attendance to PICC. It >>>> is a benefit for attending the conference and I understand it has voting >>>> rights as all memberships to LOPSA has. This is a discussion and right >>>> or wrong you throw out ideas to stir up some discussion. I guess it is >>>> just the problem with an email discussion. >>>> >>>> I just feel that if you have different types of memberships (Charter, >>>> Founder, Individual, Student,complimentary and Honorary) there should be >>>> some type of distinction. There is some distinction of these types on >>>> the membership page so it would follow suit that some distinction would >>>> be given to a corporate membership. That distinction still has to be >>>> vetted out >>>> >>>> (I changed the title of this as it has more to do with membership >>>> drives then SySadmin day activities) >>>> >>>> John J. Boris Sr. >>>> JEN-A-SyS Administrator Archdiocese of Philadelphia >>>> Chairman Professional IT Community Conference (PICC'12) >>>> www.picconf.org >>>> >>>> >>>> Evan Pettrey <jepett...@gmail.com> 4/9/2012 2:52 PM >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> 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<https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-**bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss> >>>>> <h**ttps://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-**bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss<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<https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-**bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss> >>> <h**ttps://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-**bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss<https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss> >>> > >>> >>> This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators >>> http://lopsa.org/ >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- LITTLE GIRL: But which cookie will you eat FIRST? COOKIE MONSTER: Me think you have misconception of cookie-eating process.
_______________________________________________ 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/
