On Sun, 8 Feb 2015, Derek J. Balling wrote:
On 2/8/2015 7:08 PM, David Lang wrote:
In theory you are absolutly correct, and if you remember, that was
the original plan.
ObPedantic: It was *always* going to be a separate organization. The
only thing that changed was whether or not the "SAGE" m
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 2/8/2015 7:08 PM, David Lang wrote:
> In theory you are absolutly correct, and if you remember, that was
> the original plan.
ObPedantic: It was *always* going to be a separate organization. The
only thing that changed was whether or not the "S
On Sun, 8 Feb 2015, Yves Dorfsman wrote:
On 2015-02-08 17:13, David Lang wrote:
I somewhat agree, but I'll point out that with only ~1000 members @40 each,
the dues are only $40K/year. I haven't looked at the total budget, and we
don't have any idea how many people would transition to sponsors
On Sun, 8 Feb 2015, Derek J. Balling wrote:
- - Conferences
they do them better than LOPSA does
do they? They do them bigger than LOPSA does, and they are far more expensive to
attend. But does that make them better or just serving a different group of
people?
Also, the Usenix conf
On 2015-02-08 17:13, David Lang wrote:
>
> I somewhat agree, but I'll point out that with only ~1000 members @40 each,
> the dues are only $40K/year. I haven't looked at the total budget, and we
> don't have any idea how many people would transition to sponsorship (or
> whatever level of support a
On Sun, 8 Feb 2015, Derek J. Balling wrote:
Third, if the Board is seriously considering slashing the
organization's primary revenue stream -- at the first time in LOPSA's
history when the monies collected as dues can finally go 100% towards
the actual operation of the organization, instead of d
On Sun, 8 Feb 2015, Derek J. Balling wrote:
This fall will mark the 10 year birthday of LOPSA, and it has
accomplished - literally - nothing that couldn't have been
accomplished under the USENIX/SAGE banner of yore.
In theory you are absolutly correct, and if you remember, that was the origina
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I agree with most of Derek's points here, but I don't think we need to do
anything drastic. In my opinion, the issue comes from the dichotomy between
what we wanted LOPSA to be and what it turned out to be.
We wanted LOPSA to be the professional organ
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 2/8/2015 12:34 PM, Warner wrote:
> I look at LOPSA as a central organization to bring together members
> of a profession. How does it do that? Off of the top of my head,
> I'm certainly missing things:
> * Conference(s) - Organization and par
On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 8:50 AM, Derek J. Balling wrote:
> Lastly, I'm going to throw something out there that a lot of people
> aren't going to want to hear, and frankly which I don't even want to
> really say, but which needs saying at this point:
>
> LOPSA IS A FAILURE
>
I agree. As an
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Gene brought up a lot of good points. So now I guess I'll finally
throw my $0.02 worth into the mix.
First, I'm conflicted about it, and not for the reasons anyone might
suspect.
- - Part of me thinks it's a completely horrible idea (which I'll get
Most professional organizations tend to be recognized by the majority
of the people in the profession and in some cases to many outside the
profession. They may not be members, but they know the name. If you
ask most SysAdmins for their professional organization, they won't know
of one. If you m
12 matches
Mail list logo
