Company membership of ANUS

[Garry Shutler]

Thought I'd kick off this discussion as I couldn't see one but I don't
use groups much so I might be blind.

I don't think that companies should be able to become members as
unless you're going to evaluate every company to see whether ANUS
would actually want to be commending that company in some way and I
can't see that being practical.

I would have no problem with having companies sponsor ANUS in some way
as that sends a different message about the relationship between ANUS
and the company in question.

[Gojko Adzic]

i hope you'll find a different acronym for the society, honestly.

gojko

[Garry Shutler]

Yes, the acronym is awful but the child in me can't help using it.

Sorry about that.

[Alan Dean]

Strictly speaking, the acronym should be ANUKS

> > > and the company in question.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Alan Dean]

I'm going to stand back from the discussion for the present in order
to listen to what is said.

On Aug 3, 1:31 pm, Garry Shutler <ga...@robustsoftware.co.uk> wrote:

[Chris Browne]

not wanting to hijack this thread and turn it into a discussion about
the acronym, but i side with gojko, i really hope that it doesn't
stick. no one will take it seriously with an acro like that.

as for company membership, i agree with gary. not very practical or
maybe even possible to evaluate each company.

c.

[Finn Neuik]

I agree, but for a different reason (although I do agree with Gary's comments). The number of places available at ALT.NET conferences is extremely limited and presumably that isn't going to change. Corporate membership could mean those limited places get filled up very quickly with people who are only vaguely interested in going instead of people genuinely switched on to the idea. This wouldn't be a bad thing if there were unlimited spaces, but there aren't. Sponsorship would send a different message not only about the relationship between alt.net and the organisation, but also how that relates to the people in the organisation and alt.net.

Finn

2009/8/3 Alan Dean <alan...@gmail.com>

[Dylan Beattie]

May I suggest ALTUS as an alternative short form? ALT(.Net) U(K) S(ociety) - and also a Latin word meaning "high, deep, noble or profound". Thoughts?

As for corporate membership - I vote no. I believe any firm that really embraces the alt.net ethos company-wide would be happy taking out individual memberships, and I think the more emphasis we can maintain on learning and improvement through personal connections and relationships, the better.

2009/8/3 Chris Browne <job...@gmail.com>

[Gojko Adzic]

I disagree on corporate membership. I prefer to for pay memberships
and anything that is work related from my company accounts and avoid
paying taxes on that if I can. for example, i give money to the agile
alliance to support the cause in that way. 20 quid is not a lot of
money granted, but I guess that contractors and consultants in general
would prefer to get a corporate membership than a personal one.

also, corporate membership in societies is often a way for a company
to support the cause and get an invoice for that so that the money
comes off the balance sheet. Many foundations such as eclipse or
apache get a lot of money this way. if the goal of the society is to
gather money for events it will be much easier for companies to bank-
roll this than from personal memberships.

what is your concern so that you want to evaluate companies and how is
this different from evaluating individuals?

gojko

[Garry Shutler]

People won't shell out £20 of their own cash if it isn't something they believe in. Companies would purchase membership because it's what another company does or because marketing says it will get us more business. If the company doesn't hold our beliefs it will dilute the message and purpose of the society as people will use it as a marketing tool. The only way to avoid this is to evaluate each company to see if they are aligned with that message and purpose, this could only ever grow to be a headache.

The likes of Eclipse are a tool, not a movement and so these worries don't apply to them.

2009/8/3 Gojko Adzic <goj...@gmail.com>

[Ed Blackburn]

I'm not keen on corporate membership either. I would be disappointed
if corporate member developers arrived because they’d been sent by
work and were incompatible, dispassionate and disinterested. I’m sure
I heard Ian mention yesterday that the people who attend Open Spaces
events are the right people. But will they, if they’ve been sent by
their employer?

I do however think that there is value in attempting to create
dialogue with some corporations. My understanding is that part of the
Alt Net ethos is encouraging people to adopt best practices, treat
their profession as a craft and to pick the best service / tool for
the job? Too many corporations are MSDN only, arguably to their
detriment. I think encouraging developers who work in mono-vendor
cultures to attend user groups and conferences is an activity to be
encouraged? Perhaps if a corporation or two could be persuaded to
distribute an internal email we’d keep away from the echo chamber and
spread the word?

I think there’s a distinction between corporate membership, asking
permission from corporations to internally distribute a well crafted,
articulate email, or producing an invoice. The £20 isn’t absolutely
mandatory and if somebody doesn’t think its worth paying then they’re
probably at the wrong event, or tighter than a ducks anus.

The society could produce invoices if necessary, so long as the
delegates applied for attending an event as individuals, would that
not be a sensible compromise?

[Gojko Adzic]

So what you're actually concerned about is companies sending lots of
people to alt.net events and these people not sharing the ideas of the
society? or have i misunderstood it?

if the only people coming to events are those who already know and
practice it, how will you ever then expand the knowledge about
alt.net? i think you have a wrong vision of a mythical "corporate
developer" - why would anyone ever waste his or hers time attending an
event that they are not bothered about at all. at worst you'll get
people who know nothing about alt.net and get a chance to actually
teach them something useful.

gojko

[Ed Blackburn]

Fundamentally I'm concerned that people could be coerced into
attending.

If somebody wishes to attend off their own back, or through being
coerced by somebody by another individual then I fully, utterly and
wholly endorse and encourage that. Also if a delegate requests that
their membership is charged to a business entity then personally I see
no problem, so long as the membership is affiliated to an individual
not a business.

For me attracting more people (and their different ideas / opinions)
is _very_ important and as I mentioned approaching businesses and
asking them to propagate / distribute an explanation and details of
forthcoming events is to me a good approach (assuming in my ignorance
that this approach isn't already practised.)

Ed

PS:

"May I suggest ALTUS as an alternative short form? ALT(.Net) U(K) S
(ociety) -
and also a Latin word meaning "high, deep, noble or profound".
Thoughts? "

+1

[alunharford]

On Aug 3, 2:22 pm, Gojko Adzic <goj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I disagree on corporate membership. I prefer to for pay memberships
> and anything that is work related from my company accounts and avoid
> paying taxes on that if I can. for example, i give money to the agile
> alliance to support the cause in that way. 20 quid is not a lot of
> money granted, but I guess that contractors and consultants in general
> would prefer to get a corporate membership than a personal one.

The charity can claim gift aid on the money if it is donated by an
individual, and you can claim income tax relief on charitable
donations if you're a high rate tax payer. You effectively don't pay
tax on money you donate to charity (but you're donating slightly more
than you think because the charity gets money from HMRC).

Alun Harford

[Gojko Adzic]

it's probably an off-topic discussion, but the society is not a
charity as far as I understand, it is a non-profit org. and you are
not making a donation, you are subscribing to membership. as far as I
know, personal professional society memberships bought for you by a
company are a taxable benefit in the uk. corporate memberships are not
a taxable benefit as they are related to a company, not personal. this
of course makes no sense to discuss for 20 quid :)

gojko

[Peter Ibbotson]

Some random thoughts (company names are just here as representatives) and
I've started this email several times:

In general I don't feel that we should aim to pick and choose who joins us
BUT I can see value in some mechanism for being able to protect the ANUKS
brand so that others don't trade on the brand. So far I feel happy with the
companies that have worked with the alt.net brand (most of whom I think have
bought me beer at some point)

IMPORTANT: I would like to make the point that the alt.net community should
be very aware that having members increases the risk of us being an echo
chamber, we need to actively avoid this.

If IBM or Accenture decide that the alt.net tag is flavour of the month and
join as corporate members and use the ANUS logo (goatse.cx?) on their
marketing literature and send out press releases. Is this something we want?
Possibly yes but I can see the argument that says NO (or at least no until
they've shown that the really are buying into the ethos)

SkillsMatter, Conchango or ThoughtWorks want to mention that they are
members and are sponsoring an event (and send a promotional circular round
their client base or a press release?) and get 5-10 guaranteed places? For
these companies I think most folks would probably answer that this isn't a
problem.

OneManContractor Ltd want to mention it on their literature (aka CV) again
probably not a problem.

What benefits do corporate members actually get? One benefit that could work
well in future is that corporate members get to advertise jobs directly to
members via the website, I suspect this would mean we need a job/contract
must be directly with member company policy to avoid recruiters abusing such
a facility. In particular here I'd like to make the money / effort that
companies such as EMC Conchango put into community have at least some bottom
line effect for them (Apart from sponsoring Michelle to go on a bike ride to
Paris)

Personally I think we could get away with the following broad rules:

*******

If you are a corporate member you can display a membership logo on your
literature / website (no press release / news page entry etc). ANUKS will
add you to the corporate members list on the website (I've just looked at
the list on the Agile Alliance pages and I'd hope we'd get a very similar
list)

If you are sponsoring / hosting an event you get a number of attendees and
can do press-releases etc. about that event.

There is a jobs section on the website available to all corporate members to
post job adverts on, but only if they are direct jobs / contracts with the
member.

*****

I think there are a couple of problem areas that I have heard folks moaning
about in the past which are to do with people co-opting the alt.net name
into training courses and using as an alternative Microsoft friendly OSS
brand. Given the ethos of alt.net this is always a danger I don't think we
could register "alt.net" as a trade mark (and actually I think this is a BAD
idea) however I do wonder if registering a alt.net UK society trademark
might be workable.

Peter.

[stucampbell]

My two cents...

On the abbreviation:
Inserting a K into ANUS helps, but I think ANUKS still has a
sphincteral ring to it. :)
I quite like ALTUS. The "US" might be construed as "United States",
but maybe that's not an issue; it just as easily conveys the notion of
"we, the community".

On corporate membership:
I think there is more to be gained than lost by being inclusive.
I'm not sure what guise corporate membership would take. If the
company were to pay for a single subscription so that several of its
employees could become members then I don't see a problem. It could
mean an influx of fresh blood. And if some of those employees weren't
interested, then the society would get money for nothing (similar in
principle to my gym membership). My only concern around corporates
(and I'm including sponsors here) is that they might attempt to
hijack, subvert or otherwise influence the movement to further their
corporate agendas. But again, my instinct is to be as inclusive as
possible and just deal with any problems if they arise.

On the concept of a job board for members:
This sounds like a reasonable idea. Perhaps it could provide the
"domain project" that has been mooted for OpenSpaceCode purposes?

Stu

FULL DISCLOSURE: I haven't yet sent in my membership form. The cheque
is almost in the post. :)

[Ian Cooper]

I like ALTUS

I agree with Dylan

 

Ian Cooper
07970-411892 (M)

"Always acknowledge a fault. This will throw those in authority off their guard and give you an opportunity to commit more. "
Mark Twain

---

From: Dylan Beattie <dy...@dylanbeattie.net>
To: altnetuk...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, 3 August, 2009 14:13:53
Subject: [altnetuk-discuss] Re: Company membership of ANUS

May I suggest ALTUS as an alternative short form? ALT(.Net) U(K) S(ociety) - and also a Latin word meaning "high, deep, noble or profound". Thoughts?

As for corporate membership - I vote no. I believe any firm that really embraces the alt.net ethos company-wide would be happy taking out individual memberships, and I think the more emphasis we can maintain on learning and improvement through personal connections and relationships, the better.

2009/8/3 Chris Browne <job...@gmail.com>

not wanting to hijack this thread and turn it into a discussion about
the acronym, but i side with gojko, i really hope that it doesn't
stick. no one will take it seriously with an acro like that.

as for company membership, i agree with gary. not very practical or
maybe even possible to evaluate each company.

c.

[Ian Cooper]

We could try to make it a charity, and that is something we have discussed. It's just a few more forms to fill in from our perspective and could be on the cards.

 

Ian Cooper
07970-411892 (M)

"Always acknowledge a fault. This will throw those in authority off their guard and give you an opportunity to commit more. "
Mark Twain

---

From: Gojko Adzic <goj...@gmail.com>
To: altnetuk-discuss <altnetuk...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, 3 August, 2009 16:40:30

Subject: [altnetuk-discuss] Re: Company membership of ANUS

[Ian Cooper]

I would prefer that corporates sponsor events and that individuals hold membership. 

We need corporations to stump up for our events, so as to get advertising/marketing, because that is how we make such, and other events free. We need £500 a time from some of these sponsors if we are to meet the goals we have. I suspect that if we offer corporate memberships that those corporations will use that instead of sponsoring us to gain the recognition associated with events.

As alt.net uk society is supposed to be really a vehicle for funding events and  I'm cautious with the possibility of us being seen as giving a 'stamp of officialdom' to companies associated with it. I suspect that might lead to accusations of us 'policing' who or who could not be alt.net. I'm also cautious that the motivation  for a corporate membership would tend to be the impact on the business's bottom line, not altruism.

That said, if a corporate wants to pay an individual's membership dues, such that the individual is a member, I can't see how or why we would realistically prevent that. It should certainly help out independents who want to put membership through their books.

Finally Seb wants to go after the corporates and I'm not sure that fighting for the same people helps any of us.

[Gojko Adzic]

I guess it all depends where you want to take this, and that is one of
the key questions to be defined by members i think. IMO, the sooner
the society defines its agenda and list of goals the better. If you
want to position it as an events organiser, then it would probably
make much more sense to turn it into a serious professional
association than a charity, as that would give it a stronger position
to grow alt.net and organise something similar to qcon in a few years.
then again, from other messages in this thread i see that others would
like to keep it very informal and possibly even as an elitist club.

gojko

[Gojko Adzic]

why not altnetuk, why does it have to be an acronym for an acronym?
altnetuk is short enough.

gojko

On Aug 3, 9:24 pm, Ian Cooper <ian_hammond_coo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> I like ALTUS
>
> I agree with Dylan
>
>  Ian Cooper
> 07970-411892 (M)
>
> "Always acknowledge a fault. This will throw those in authority off their guard and give you an opportunity to commit more. "
> Mark Twain
>
> ________________________________
> From: Dylan Beattie <dy...@dylanbeattie.net>
> To: altnetuk...@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Monday, 3 August, 2009 14:13:53
> Subject: [altnetuk-discuss] Re: Company membership of ANUS
>
> May I suggest ALTUS as an alternative short form? ALT(.Net) U(K) S(ociety) - and also a Latin word meaning "high, deep, noble or profound". Thoughts?
>
> As for corporate membership - I vote no. I believe any firm that really embraces the alt.net ethos company-wide would be happy taking out individual memberships, and I think the more emphasis we can maintain on learning and improvement through personal connections and relationships, the better.
>
> 2009/8/3 Chris Browne <job...@gmail.com>
>
> >>not wanting to hijack this thread and turn it into a discussion about
> >>the acronym, but i side with gojko, i really hope that it doesn't

> >>stick.. no one will take it seriously with an acro like that.

>
> >>as for company membership, i agree with gary. not very practical or
> >>maybe even possible to evaluate each company.
>
> >>c.
>

> >>On Aug 3, 1:38 pm, Garry Shutler <ga...@robustsoftware.co.uk> wrote:
> >>> Yes, the acronym is awful but the child in me can't help using it.
>

> >>> Sorry about that..

[Gojko Adzic]

> That said, if a corporate wants to pay an individual's membership dues, such that the individual is a member, I can't see how or why we would realistically prevent that. It should certainly help out independents who want to put membership through their books.

By positioning this cleverly, you can get a lot more money from the
same people. I'm not an accountant but from what I understand, instead
of putting 20 quid in from my personal account i can give you 35-40
from a corporate account and that will cost me the same, especially if
the company becomes a member so that there are no taxable benefits
that I need to report.

gojko

[Ian Cooper]

The society has published its goals. The purpose of the society is wholly a funding vehicle. The society itself would not be an event organizer, it would provide financial backing for events.

its not really a club, in fact I'm surprised by the numbers wanting membership as its not likely to offer many benefits

 

Ian Cooper
07970-411892 (M)

"Always acknowledge a fault. This will throw those in authority off their guard and give you an opportunity to commit more. "
Mark Twain

---

From: Gojko Adzic <goj...@gmail.com>
To: altnetuk-discuss <altnetuk...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Monday, 3 August, 2009 21:45:57

> On Aug 3, 4:25 pm, alunharford <devn....@alunharford.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 3, 2:22 pm, Gojko Adzic <goj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I disagree on corporate membership. I prefer to for pay memberships
> > > and anything that is work related from my company accounts and avoid
> > > paying taxes on that if I can. for example, i give money to the agile
> > > alliance to support the cause in that way. 20 quid is not a lot of
> > > money granted, but I guess that contractors and consultants in general
> > > would prefer to get a corporate membership than a personal one.
>
> > The charity can claim gift aid on the money if it is donated by an
> > individual, and you can claim income tax relief on charitable
> > donations if you're a high rate tax payer. You effectively don't pay
> > tax on money you donate to charity (but you're donating slightly more

> > than you think because the charity gets money from HMRC)..
>
> > Alun Harford

[Sebastien Lambla]

Finally Seb wants to go after the corporates and I'm not sure that fighting for the same people helps any of us.

Just to ad to the debate, i've published the AltNetGroup announcement on my blog

http://serialseb.blogspot.com/2009/08/announcing-alternative-network-group.html

Hopefully it'll be clear to everyone that the society is about providing a structure for funds to flow for conferences and other events, and the AltNetGroup would actually organize some events that may get funded by the society.

At least that's how I understood the process to be working.

Seb

---

Windows Live Messenger: Celebrate 10 amazing years with free winks and emoticons. Get Them Now

[alunharford]

On Aug 3, 9:27 pm, Ian Cooper <ian_hammond_coo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> We could try to make it a charity, and that is something we have discussed. It's just a few more forms to fill in from our perspective and could be on the cards.

Sorry, I thought you already were! The constitution certainly seems to
declare the society's aims as charitable (furtherance of education).

That said, I think the whole deal of members getting to register for
events first seems to push the society towards being a cliquey private
club. It seems like you wanted to give some benefit to membership and
that really isn't necessary - I think most people would put their hand
in their pocket to support the organisation without such dangerous
perks.

Alun Harford

[Alan Dean]

We are going through the process of becoming a Registered Society, rather than a Registered Charity (hence Ian's point - becoming a Charity is largely a matter of more paperwork than being a Society).

Regards,
Alan Dean
Sent from Esher, Surrey, United Kingdom