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, <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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. >>> >>> >>> <[email protected]> 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 >>> [email protected] >>> https://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 > [email protected] > https://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 [email protected] https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
