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

Daniel Brown djb at unixan.com
Thu Dec 29 16:56:42 PST 2005

Wrote Trey Harris:

> In a message dated Thu, 29 Dec 2005, Daniel Brown writes:
> > 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.
> I'd be careful in assuming that you can cut the difference and have the 
> same sort of weak relationship to both.  SAGE never had a strong locals 
> program, but LOPSA fully intends to, and I would expect that in the next 
> year or so LOPSA will start activating that program by offering benefits 

In this case, I'd say we go for: B) Affiliate with LOPSA

And here's my $.02 for possible names.

Seattle Area Computer System Administrators (Seattle CSA) group
Seattle Area Professional System Administrators (Seattle PSA) group


More information about the Members mailing list