[Seattle-SAGE] To be, or not to be: Seattle LOPSA

Daniel Brown djb at unixan.com
Thu Dec 29 11:50:55 PST 2005


Wrote Scott McDermott:

> Myself and some of the more active members of the SSG think that our
> group would be best served by changing from a SAGE affiliated group to a
> LOPSA affiliated group. Here's a *very* short background:
...
> So, that's the really condensed version. I'd like to take a vote from
> those who read this far (please just reply directly to me if you choose
> to vote), do we:
> 
> A) Stick with SAGE
> B) Affiliate with LOPSA
> C) Don't care as long as things stay about the same
> 
> If we affiliate with LOPSA, do we just become the Seattle LOPSA Group,
> Seattle LOPSA, or something else?

As I understand, our only link between Seattle SAGE Group and SAGE is
in the name, and in our heads; we don't pay them (except as individual
memberships), and they don't don't sponsor us (anymore: we moved our
mailinglist).  As a result of those two tenuosities, we do such
informative things in our meetings like telling newcomers what SAGE is
and list upcoming events related to SAGE.  Some of us are paying
members of SAGE, but we don't advertise that often.

If that's correct, and unless LOPSA (can we convince them to get a new
name?) requires stronger affiliation than that, I think we can
affiliate ourselves to both, actually.  We can benefit ourselves with
the activities of both as a result.  If we adopt a neutral name, it
also has a likelihood of being more attractive.

But then, which (SAGE or LOPSA) do we recommend paying membership fees
to?  I think we should advise what membership means for both, and
leave it up to attendees to decide if they want one or both, just like
we do for SAGE.

We'll exist to benefit our Seattle-area SA's, and it may be in our
best interest to adopt no singular affiliation, since now there's more
than one anyways.

      -Daniel



More information about the Members mailing list