[Lopsa-regional-project] chp/partner/affiliate

[Adam S. Moskowitz]

der.hans wrote:
> (a lot of stuff)

How about we start with defining *WHY* we want the different levels of
affiliation. Specifically, what benefit is there to LOPSA for each of
the proposed types of affiliation, and what benefit would there be to
"the other group?" Exactly what services would LOPSA provide and exactly
what would LOPSA require of each type of affiliate?

For "Affiliate" this is clear (as der.hans stated): "The relationship is
mostly ad hoc co-promotion."

But what about the others? Do we need them? If so, why?

One thing we could do is get in touch with the IEEE and the ACM and ask
how they do it. Then, get in touch with some of the locals on the other
end of those arrangements and ask whether the particular type of
relationship has helped, and in what way?

> I think the tasks can mostly be done in parallel although board buy in
> is something we should get sooner than later.

I've said this to the Board, now I'll say it to this group: LOPSA needs
to develop a business plan before they do anything else. That business
plan needs to spell out what LOPSA's goals are and what they plan to do
in the next 1-2-5-10 years to meet those goals. Until that business plan
exists, the Board shouldn't be "buying in" to anything.

For all we know, the plan may call for work on affiliations not to start
until 2007. Yes, we are not the Board, and we're not asking the Board to
do this work -- but the Board needs to have someone coordinating
volunteer efforts such as this one, and the Board needs to decide how
other resources will be allocated, etc.

So after we come up with a "business plan" of our own (what types of
affiliations and why), then we pretty much stop until the Board approves
not only our plan but the allocation of their resources to work with our
effort.

Not trying to sound negative, but I've seen way too many groups fail
because they went off in too many directions too early. I'd kinda like
for LOPSA not to repeat that mistake, and I don't want to see this
effort be an active part of that mistake.

AdamM