[Lopsa-regional-project] Defining relationships

[der.hans]

Am 15. Jan, 2006 schwätzte Adam S. Moskowitz so:

I'm also fine with this list of requirements. Something similar would
probably work just fine for LOPSA.

For now I'd like to leave the meetings requirement out. Maybe just
allowing those meetings to be multi-group activities would be fine.

We need to set up a mechanism/person/committee with which those regional
liaisons can coordinate and communicate.

ciao,

der.hans

> For what it's worth, here are the relevant requirements from SAGE:
>
> 	Represent a defined geographic area;
>
> 	Allow participation and/or membership to any system
> 	administrator in that defined geographical area;
>
> 	Have a purpose consistent with that of SAGE;
>
> 	Meet at least four times per year;
>
> 	Not be organized for profit; and
>
> 	At all times have at least two members who are members of SAGE
>
> 	Appoint a liaison to SAGE for coordination and communication;
>
> 	Provide a means to forward SAGE-relevant announcements; and
>
> 	Agree to refer to SAGE (by net address) in all distributed
> 	information (e.g., web site, flyers, etc).
>
> Frankly I think this is a pretty reasonable set of requirements, and
> until LOPSA reaches the point that "regional chapters" (like those of
> the IEEE) make sense, I can't see a reason foor LOPSA to impose more or
> more stringent requirements than these.
>
> AdamM
> _______________________________________________
> Lopsa-regional-project mailing list
> Lopsa-regional-project at lopsa.org
> http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lopsa-regional-project
>

-- 
#  https://www.LuftHans.com/        http://www.CiscoLearning.org/
#  Join the League of Professional System Administrators! https://LOPSA.org/
#  "Communications without intelligence is noise;
#  Intelligence without communications is irrelevant."
#  Gen. Alfred. M. Gray, USMC