[Chapter-delegates] Application to form a Chapter in Bangalore, India

[Sivasubramanian Muthusamy]

Hello Veni, Anne,


On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Veni Markovski <veni at veni.com> wrote:

>  Anne, some comments below:
>
> Anne Lord wrote:
>
>     1) ISOC HQ should direct members first to existing chapters
>
>   Yes agreed. This *is* standard procedure.  As I explained previously we
> omitted this step and it was not intentional. Please accept our apologies
> for this.
>
> I'm willing to accept the explanation that by default ISOC does not not do
> bad things intentionally, if you accept the explanation that the ISOC
> chapters do not do bad things intentionally. Because sometimes I have the
> feeling that this is not the case.
>

If we assume that it is not intentional that you omitted this step, why
aren't you making amends now by asking those from Bangalore to join ISOC
Chennai now ?

>
>  from:  http://www.isoc.org/isoc/chapters/policy/
> "Chapters may be established on a *non-exclusive* basis to serve the needs
> of any specific, cohesive community of interest. Multiple Chapters serving
> overlapping communities are not permitted."
>
>  The important point here is that the scope of the proposed Chapter must
> be sufficiently differentiated and not overlapping.  We will (and do) work
> with both parties to ensure that is not the case.
>
> You've put in bold the "non-exclusive" basis, but for Shiva and the members
> of his chapter, I guess the more important part is the "not permitted" part.
>
>

Yes, that is what needs to be emphasized.

>  I hope this explains some of our general procedures. As I said before we
> are working to revise the procedures and improve our current policy
> framework, so I will be reaching out to many of those that have posted and
> have an interest on this topic for help with this particular piece of work.
>
> Do you think that a revision of the policy framework will be enough? May be
> I've missed it, but I haven't seen increasing the importance of the chapters
> in the ISOC governance model, which could be the only way to show all
> chapters that they indeed do matter for ISOC. I can understand your and your
> colleagues frustration, as it seems that a huge discussion only starts, when
> there is a problem, but don't forget - many of the *good *things we do
> locally are never coming to your attention as well. But if we do something,
> which someone (be that a chapter member, a non-member, or just a fake email
> address) believes is not good, you are also fast on reacting by reaching out
> to the chapters, asking them questions, initiating investigations in some
> cases, etc.
>
> So, if you are seriously considering improvement of the policy framework, I
> believe that many chapters are still wondering why they can elect only 3 of
> the Board Trustees, while the organizational members elect 6. This is the
> only real measurement on the importance of the chapters - the right to vote
> and elect.
>

+1

>
> best,
> veni
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20091010/cd4a5610/attachment.htm>