[chapter-delegates] Results of the board discussion on membership

[Gene Gaines]

Veni,

I will make my position clear, in response to your email
below.

I mean the best for ISOC; otherwise I would not be putting
in this time.

Making ISOC effective will require work and changes.  I hope
that all will help toward in that work.

I suggest to you the issue of governing transparency and
taking personal responsibility for actions is the critical
issue today, far more important than one action of the
US$75 membership question.

The people who will be disappointed by the US$75 membership
vote will be INFURIATED by the "sense of the board" decision.

So we move on and continue to work to make things good.  It
is that way in groups where there is any sense of democracy.

Differing opinions, selfish interests, greed, grabs for power
to the harm of the group and its objectives arise from time
to time. It is the responsibility of everyone in the group to
continue civil communication and work to make things right.

So, Veni, I appreciate your words.  But expect many people to
be INFURIATED for the reason I give above.

Gene
gene.gaines at gainesgroup.com

On Saturday, March 12, 2005, 8:29:24 PM, Veni wrote:

> At 20:19 12-03-05  -0500, Gene Gaines wrote:
>>Patrick,
>>
>>I have read your email (below).
>>
>>I would appreciate knowing if the entire board was
>>present and expressed their "sense" on the issue of the
>>US$75 paid membership issue, or if any board members were
>>absent.
>>
>>Also, if there were any dissenting statements on the board,
>>it would be good to make those public.
>>
>>This is not intended to embarrass anyone, but this issue is
>>of sufficient importance to people on this list so that
>>dialogs on this issue can be opened.

> Gene,
> I really would like not to go into details, considering the fact that we
> (at least me and Patrick, who was sitting next to me) were not taking
> notes, but I had the opportunity to say already, that the chapters are the
> natural asset to ISOC, and we have to have good relations between them and
> the HQ.
> The implementation of the new "associate" membership without advanced
> dicussion, is a mistake; I hope that it will not be repeated, and I said
> that publicly, as well as to David McAuley in a separate conversation. I
> repeat it here, so that he and Jim read it. I hope that the BoT will come
> soon with well written rules, procedural rules, so that we don't end up in
> such a heated discussion.

> I think we can give ISOC another chance. Yes, we've been disappointed
> before, but let's see what will happen with the following:
> - new membership model
> - program funding (both to chapters, and to the IAC)
> and last, but not least -
> - public policy.

> We also need to see who of the many nominated people will be running for
> the coming elections, what their programs will be, and what the response
> from chapters will be. Keep in mind that there are people, who have
> complained that they don't participate in the chapter-delegates list,
> because they are being attacked and blamed for being "too westernized". I
> have not met such people, but other Boatd members have, and this is what we
> were told.
> Let's try to bring more than the current participants in the mailing list,
> and see what we can come to the Board with.

> best,
> v. 



--