next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects In my brief notes regarding an IP merge with the general membership, I suggested an organization class AND a business class. I would further suggest that the Janet MacKay example would fall under the organization class, with fees and resources appropriate to that class (e.g. assisted). However, the purpose to this thread is not to impose a 'vision' upon the membership, but to solicit ideas and commentary about streamlining the registration process. The present system has been in place for five years. It works well. And maybe should not be tinkered with. But, some of the membership continually broaches the subject, and expects answers and action. The IP community wants to be consulted in matters pertaining to changes to the process, fees, etc. For this purpose we have open meetings and discussion threads. Now is the time to offer your views. In due course, I will present my own viewpoint and suggestions. But I do think that the final report should be on the basis of concensus. That the presentation to the board would reflect the wishes of the membership. All IP editors should be familiar with the registration process, its benefits and deficiencies. As CCN members they should also understand the membership registration and renewal process (there is no renewal process for IPs, by the way). Both processes have good points. Why not take the best from both and create a better system. Doug McCann Chair, IP Committee On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 potter@chebucto.ns.ca wrote: > Any changes to the IP systems and structures should clearly offer the options > and support that allowed/encouraged Janet to develop her heritage resource. > > > > If the proposition that membership should be expanded to include an > > organization level and a business level, then the procedure for joining CCN > > could be streamlined into one procedure, with the appropriate fees and > > services. > > How would this (and other recent) proposals[s] (have) affect[ed] Janet MacKay? > > I still want to see/hear the revised 'vision' that's driving this ...because > many of these initiatives do not appear to _support_ the original vision. >
next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects