[Chapter-delegates] LoA for good or bad?

[Veni Markovski]

Isoc HQ has no control over the Isoc members. The LoA gives exactly that,
what they cannot have vis-a-vis the members. There is no reason to discuss
the LoA - it is an idea, which turned out to be bad, and not coming on time
(it should come as an exchange of letters, but AFTER Isoc changes its
by-laws).

V.

On Saturday, March 24, 2012, Grigori Saghyan <gregor at arminco.com> wrote:
> Dear All,
>
>> Where are chapters in this model? Chapters are subgroups of members.
>
> Why these subgroups have to sign a LoA?
> Let us observe a case, when there is only one member (participant?) in
> the Chapter, who also represents the subgroup - as an extreme case.
> In this case there is no need to sign the LoA, because this person has
> already accepted ISOC membership conditions.
>
> Better to describe, how to involve  ISOC member from the area, where any
> Chapter is active  into named Chapter - formally. May be double
membership?
>
>
> --
> Grigori Saghyan
> PGP Key ID: 0x48E4D5DC
>
>

-- 
Best,
Veni

== Sent from my phone, so any spelling mistakes are caused by the
touchscreen keyboard. That's a nice excuse, isn't it;-)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20120324/eaa2f64a/attachment.htm>