next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects Quoting "Douglas J. McCann" <aa935@chebucto.ns.ca>: > > 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). I have some personal concerns over the use of terms such as 'assisted' with respect to individuals and feel that individuals who fall into that membership category should be consulted with respect to it's appropriateness... with respect to IP's I personally think 'demonstration site' is more appropriate, or 'sponsored' for long term sites. I assume that the board will itself continue to 'sponsor' web sites relating to conferences or other events such as 'TC97'. With respect to resource allocations/restrictions/... I am interested in acknowledegement that some sites (including assisted/demonstration) require significantly more resources to operate effectively... again, Janet MacKay's site is a interesting example. Providing a small resource allocation would likely have prevented the development of her site. Current media forms including sites with significant image based content, audio files, or other large resource requirements challenge the notion of general restrictions on resource allocation or at least the administration of such... The discussion about 'merging' membership classes will benefit from real world examples... > 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. I find it odd that you would use the word 'impose'. My personal invitation is for the board and the committee chair to 'share' their vision. The related vision that I currently hold is based largely part on basic principles: 1) that individuals or organizations with the fewest resources are most in need of CCN's services, and 2) that CCN's primary function is to assist and _encourage_ those groups and individuals in utilizing these information systems 3) that we are involved in giving voice to groups and individuals 4) that we are involved in building community... While I am prepared, and indeed would welcome renewed vision, my question would remain... "How will merging the IP process with other membership functions contribute to the current vision? Do we need to dismantle the entire system to remove an recent inconvenience associated with IP training?" Many of the preceived problems with 'IP Training' can probably be addressed by creating a training/testing program aimed at IP-FTP similar to the one in use for text based systems, and waiving the text training if it is not appropriate. I see no benefit in the 'Click now, pay here to become an IP' approach. > 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 > david potter Volunteer --------------------------------------------------------------- This mail was sent through the Nova Scotia Provincial Server. http://nsaccess.ns.ca/mail/ (in development)
next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects