[Lopsa-regional-project] Defining relationships

[Adam S. Moskowitz]

Eric Eisenhart <lopsa.org at eric.eisenhart.name> wrote:
> Things LOPSA could consider requiring of groups:
>   I) Liason
>  II) Link back to LOPSA, referring to LOPSA in other communications, etc.
> . . .
>  IV) Require some minimum amount of members of the local group to be members
>      of LOPSA.
> . . .
>  VI) Consistent with LOPSA

Same as current SAGE requirements; no complaints. For IV, the current
number of required members is two (but I don''t think they check).

> III) Require all members of the local group to be members of LOPSA

Sorry, no: Many (most?) local groups do not charge dues (or even
admission); almost as many don't maintain any sort of membership
database beyond a mailing list. Not only is this *WAY* too much hassle
for the local group, it's intrusive and over-bearing. Forcing people to
join an organization is likely to hurt as much (if not more) than help.

>   V) Not to be associated with SAGE.

The day that LOPSA (or any other organization) were to tell BBLISA what
other organizations we can't or must be affiliated with would be the
day BBLISA tells LOPSA to go take the proverbial flying fuck at a
rolling donut! In general, LOPSA and SAGE need the local groups a whole
lot more than the local groups need SAGE and LOPSA. Unless LOPSA can
show that SAGE (or any other group) is actively trying to harm or
destroy LOPSA, I am hard-pressed to think of a reason to disallow such
multiple affiliations. I have *never* had a "parent" organization impose
such a restriction, and I hope I never do.

AdamM