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

[James M Galvin]

This mailing list is the "General Assembly of Chapters."  It is an open 
forum for Chapters to speak their mind, for ISOC staff to listen, and for 
ISOC staff to respond to your concerns.

Jim




--On Monday, March 14, 2005 9:56 AM -0500 Carlos Vera 
<cvera at uio.satnet.net> wrote:

> We do not have only to wait that "...it will not be repeated" Are we
> accepting this? Is this a one way decision? Does this organization have
> some General Assembly of Chapters or some other decision level? Is
> there some process to follow or are we in a propietary style
> organization where somebody makes a decision and that's it? Please
> clarify so ISOC Ecuador can also make a decision on how to participate,
> if there is some way, in the game.
>
> Carlos Vera Quintana
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "James M Galvin" <galvin at elistx.com>
> To: "Veni Markovski" <veni at veni.com>
> Cc: <chapter-delegates at lists.isoc.org>
> Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2005 12:39 PM
> Subject: Re: [chapter-delegates] Results of the board discussion on
> membership
>
>
> >
> >
> > --On Sunday, March 13, 2005 3:29 AM +0200 Veni Markovski
> > <veni at veni.com> wrote:
> >
> >> 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 will respond so we all know I read this and to clarify the phrase
> > 'without advanced discussion'.  As I said in my apology, we were wrong
> > when we failed to alert the Chapters explicitly about the new program.
> > We should have explicitly asked for their comment, rather than
> > waiting to see if they would say anything.  If that's what you mean
> > by "advanced discussion" then we are in agreement.
> >
> > Jim
> >
> >
>