Aquaponics Association Charter

[Sylvia Bernstein]

I'm starting this forum topic for anyone who is interested in talking about the new Aquaponics Association.  While nothing will be set in stone when we officially adopt the Charter at the Conference on Sept 16, we'd like to get it as close to representative of what the aquaponics community is hoping for by that time.

If you go to the page that we've set up on the Association site (click here) you can download the Charter and Organizational structure, and answer some questions about your constructive feedback and how can we give you value for your membership dues.  Please take the survey!

Feel free to ask any questions about what we are doing here - the Organizing Committee (myself, Gina Cavaliero, Murray Hallam and Wayne Hall) is an open book, and everyone is a member in this community site.  We are 100% committed to creating an organization that will serve aquaponics well...although we obviously won't be able to do everything right out of the gate, nor will we be able to make everyone happy.  

I'd like to start the discussion rolling by asking a question  that I asked on Murray's forum this morning - how can we bring value to both Individual Members and Commercial members for their dues?  We've listed several things we could do on the survey linked above.  What are we missing?  What sounds great?

[TCLynx]

Yea I see a need for a clearer definition to the commercial membership option.  The way it looks now, it just looks like a way to buy more votes and no real definition about what additional requirements would be necessary to qualify other than simply paying the higher fees.

 

I can understand that commercial growers Need the association the most and it is reasonable that they pay more I suppose but the weighted vote without more definition does bother me and without the weighted vote I don't really see that it is fair to make the commercial growers pay so much more.  Perhaps it could be something similar to the proposal Rupert made for the associate member businesses.  Where the individuals involved in commercial growing should just go ahead and get individual memberships and then the business/farm entity could get the commercial grower membership (at a rate similar to what might be appropriate for associate members) for access to the advertizing perks and being able to display an association logo on their own sites/signs/labeling to show that they support the association.

 

How does that sound to people?

[Ryan Chatterson]

To keep it short, I took silvias comment as wanting an example of a possible conflict of interest which is why i posted. I don't think any of you are dishonest ill intenioned people and as long as there is clarity it shouldn't be an issue.

RupertofOZ said:

It would seem an easy way to resolve some matters to me...

[Sylvia Bernstein]

Hey guys.  We hear you about the membership structure and it is on the agenda for our Skype meeting tomorrow.  We will get back to you on this Thursday.  thanks

[Chris Cates]

But wait, we could beat it to death some more if we try...

Sylvia Bernstein said:

Hey guys.  We hear you about the membership structure and it is on the agenda for our Skyp meeting tomorrow.  We will get back to you on this Thursday.  thanks

[TCLynx]

[Wayne Hall]

Why stop the fun we have been having so far, I agree Chris can we not beat it to death some more? 

[RupertofOZ]

Better to beat it to death now... than have it beat us later...

[TCLynx]

Give em a chance to work on re-writes with the ideas.

 

Pick some new point of interest to ask/or beat.

[Gina Cavaliero]

Wayne and Chris, I mean this wholeheartedly when I say, NOOOOOO!  :)  

Glad I can still edit. TC, you are not exempt either!  No provoking beating of anything else.  We can have some calm, sane and friendly dialogue!    

 

[Wayne Hall]

Party pooper

[David Waite]

Rupert you can type and teach cant you. I think this association could use you on the educational membership side. I know you could help with writing water chemistry articles and how to's for the association. I basically have seen your strengths in this forum and your other side as well. If you want to really see this thing go then damn it lets do it. I know you have competing interests over in AU. Bring them together use your intellect for the good of this organization not just as a critic. Basically no monday qtr backing get in a play. Cher,s my friend.........D

RupertofOZ said:

David, I've never opposed the "association" outrightly... if modifications could be made... and I'd certainly be much more attracted to involvement with the modifications that are being proposed...

 

As to a personal level of involvement... I'm not ducking the question... but I'm not sure what level of commitment I could give at the moment due to a health problem.. that could have significant long term impact on many areas of my life and lifestyle...

 

I'll know more in the next few weeks...

David Waite said:

Rupert you are making suggestions. Is it your intention if the charter makes changes to better the charter you will put your name in the hat and become a leader and lend the community your knowledge or are you going to remain on the sidelines. Not really saying put up or shut up just curious as your interest level is high, but is your commitment level the same.

[David Waite]

I personally hope everybody buys a commercial membership. The 245 bucks vs the 45 would give the association some real capital to work with to promote the aquaponics cause. If you dont give incentives to suppliers and commercial operations this organization will  never have any capital. IF someone wants the commercial membership let them have its perks with the fees. If they are commercial and just want a single membership they can do that but get one vote. Please understand if the organization cant raise funds you only get this discussion for eternity. Alot of Bull---- and nothing gets done. Think about it...........D

TCLynx said:

Yea I see a need for a clearer definition to the commercial membership option.  The way it looks now, it just looks like a way to buy more votes and no real definition about what additional requirements would be necessary to qualify other than simply paying the higher fees.

 

I can understand that commercial growers Need the association the most and it is reasonable that they pay more I suppose but the weighted vote without more definition does bother me and without the weighted vote I don't really see that it is fair to make the commercial growers pay so much more.  Perhaps it could be something similar to the proposal Rupert made for the associate member businesses.  Where the individuals involved in commercial growing should just go ahead and get individual memberships and then the business/farm entity could get the commercial grower membership (at a rate similar to what might be appropriate for associate members) for access to the advertizing perks and being able to display an association logo on their own sites/signs/labeling to show that they support the association.

 

How does that sound to people?