| |
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Jeff Johnston writes:
> Mike Zinkowsky wrote:
> Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> > > People who take part but not much should have a voice. People who don't • take
> > > part at all is different, don't you think?
> >
> > True enough, though I'm unsure about people like me, people in contact with • the
> > group, but not in person...
>
> That brings up an interesting point...
>
> Suppose there were a group of NELUGgers in, say, Hartford, CT. If all of them
> were comfortable with having a 15 year old member, or judging on a case-by- • case
> basis, should the opinions of the core Boston NELUGgers stop them?
>
> If there somehow were more of them than there were NELUGgers in Boston, and
> they voted to change the age requirement, should that be enforced in Boston?
>
> I think the answer to both of these questions is 'no', mostly because the • groups
> would/should act pretty much independantly. Any other way doesn't seem • logical
> to me.
Jumping in from outside again (please note - follow-ups to lugnet.org), please
take the following as a suggestion (and other LUGs who are grappling with
membership policies should also consider):
To the extent of who is allowed to attend meetings, I suggest that while a
club may have a policy on membership etc. that it should be up to the person
(s) hosting a meeting (or organizing one in a public place) to decide who will
be allowed to attend (even a group which doesn't have a membership policy may
want to restrict a meeting to 21 or older because the meeting will be held at
a bar which doesn't admit underage patrons).
If membership conveys other benefits (such as subscription to an e-mail list)
then things are trickier. One way to handle this kind of situation is to have
associate members or junior members or whatever. The benefits which should be
restricted to full members (voting is one possible example) would then be
restricted, but other benefits would be available to all who sign up (or pay
dues).
Another way of course to handle differing opinions on allowed attendance is to
have "official" meetings and "unofficial" meetings. "Unofficial" meetings can
have whatever attendance restrictions the organizer desires. Other terms which
might be used are closed and open meetings, or private and public meetings.
Just a few thoughts from an interested outsider.
follow-ups to: lugnet.org (if a NELUG member wants to continue discussion
about these ideas for NELUG's purposes, please re-direct back to
lugnet.org.us.nelug of course).
Frank
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Age limitations - my two cents
|
| (...) That brings up an interesting point... Suppose there were a group of NELUGgers in, say, Hartford, CT. If all of them were comfortable with having a 15 year old member, or judging on a case-by-case basis, should the opinions of the core Boston (...) (24 years ago, 6-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
|
258 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
