90p Admin

It's not too early to start planning for our February MOTM. I think we've discussed locations and tentatively the thought is that San Diego is still a good location mostly because it is close to most of the Sage vendors (as well as Sage). Do we want to think about having two session rooms? That would allow us to offer two tracks - maybe technical and business? And we would not have to run sessions concurrently during all times.

What prompted me to post is someone asked via LinkedIn if they could attend (Karen Espinoza)

I definitely would be more interested if there was a Business Track. I'm not really in depths of the technical with MAS anymore.

Interesting concept. I like it.

This conference has grown to the point where we should consider compensating our local coordinator(s) - Mr Woodhead and anyone else charged with organizing. We can probably fairly easily do this if we work out some sponsorship opportunities in advance of advertising the conference. In the past we've decided to table sponsors to focus on the content however we seem to at the last minute have sponsors approach us. This year we can approach them with a plan. We should follow the lead of other conferences and expect that presenters will present for no fee though we may consider if we would waive their attendance. I know that the IT Alliance seems to do this on a case by case basis but I have never had mine waived (and they generally indicated they don't normally) and those who've presented at Sage Summit know that Sage does waive. My feeling is we should NOT waive as this is a smaller more collaborative event. We should also think about WHO can attend. In the past we've limited it to Fellows and invited OASIS. Do we want to open it up to the entire membership? Personally I continue to have to difficult time differentiating between a fellow and OASIS/member. It might be time to just do away with that distinction and have one group. When we began we had lots of concerns about admitting firms seen as competitors. Those concerns seem to have been unfounded since everyone seems to ""play well"" and explaining the distinction between fellow and OASIS/member is confusing for firms. An annual meeting such as MOTM could be a good kickoff for this. Quite frankly I can't see any downside to doing this other than it's not the way we started out. I do think that no matter which way we go we should present and ratify bylaws at the meeting. I'll be happy to work with Robert and anyone else on editing these (just please do them in Google Docs on our 90 Minds account so we're not sending dozens of emails).

A booth at Summit cost $6,000 Sponsor: Platinum $30,000 Gold $22,000 Silver $17,500 Bronze $12,500 Not suggesting these are numbers that 90 Minds would charge but give an idea of the top level

Just about all the other adhoc sponsorships - coffee break, partner lunch, ipad lounge, etc were $ 5,000 +/- per

In the past I believe our high end sponsor (Altec) paid somewhere around $2,000 - $3,000 to sponsor a dinner.

I only have a few minutes but definitely, Jim should be compensated as we discussed at Summit re: the MOTF symposium. And I think we should approach vendors to sponsor. While I don't mind opening the MOTM to all 90 Minds members, I feel the distinction between a Fellow and an Associate is worth preserving. What about us just inviting John Hoyt as a full Fellow? Means nothing if we do away with it completely. More thoughts later. Gotta run.

I'd be interested in presenting our EverSafe Solution at some point. I can do it in between 30 and 45 minutes. I'll recuse myself on weighing in on this question, but what would the rest of you charge me for doing this session.

This goes back to the Paul Ziliak question - do we charge members for webinars/demos to the group? Or do we give them a discount? Wayne had suggested the following for MOTM sponsorship: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AoB99YPgnHqMdGM1NFpmUU00c3E5MHpIM2lDLWc0Snc#gid=0 Gold - $3,500 for: 60 Minute session Two attendees No dinner (a member WOULD get dinner) Literature to attendees Yes to pre-conference advertising on web To me, that seems steep for a member. What if they only want a 30 minute session and only one attendee? How do we negotiate the details? He also had $500 for a vendor webinar to the group (after paying a joiner fee). What was the fee for this year's MOTM - $150? What if Mark (or any member) pays the MOTM fee plus $500 for a session (or a discounted session fee)? My .02.

You mean Associates??

We voted to allow OASIS attend, didn't we?

I don't recall anything official regarding the vote. We did have the issue last meeting but I understood that to be a one off exception. Still needs to be fleshed out. I feel it will dilute the brand by opening it up to all comers. Perhaps we should have the February meeting for Fellows only and a Summit meeting that includes Associates.

Let's just defer a vote until next year.

Or next decade.

@JeffSchwenk in what way might it dilute the brand? I don't get it. You didn't seem to think it would dilute the brand to allow them to attend MOTF. Personally, it dilutes the brand to allow folks who don't contribute to linger on as full members but we do.

So what IS the difference between the two levels? Besides cost of admission. And I did have an issue with NON members attending MOTF but it came down to taking their money or charging members more or not even having it. I don't see this being an issue here. And as far as participation, pull a list and let's see who is participates and who isn't so we can draw the red line in the sand.

Many of these ideals are great when you are a 15 member club. Fast forward to 140 in Socialcast and this whole ""who participates"" doesn't scale. I have great difficulty explaining to members what the difference in membership level is and why there is a difference. Management of the group by committee and 100% vote is not working.

What are you suggesting @WayneSchulz ?

He's suggesting that that MoFo Robert get the By Laws completed enough to pass around...

And does there really need to be a difference? If you participate, you get to play for less $ and if you don't, you get to pay more $ to play.

That's the difference then. You participate and you move up to Fellow. You don't, you stay an Associate and pay more. Participation is somewhat subjective but that's what we do - suggest who should move up.

Fellows should get voting privileges. Associates shouldn't. We had discussed having some sessions at MOTM that were Fellows only too. I figure if they are willing to make the investment to attend, they deserve to go.

Circling back to MOTM - I'm being asked by associates whether they are going to be able to attend. I have enough problems tracking my open tasks due to customers without now having to start another list of associate firms I need to update on whether they can send a member from their firm, etc. My sense is that if this goes like past meetings we won't know right up to the deadline and even then the decision will be made under protest.

I think we will know by mid November if we are going to open it to associates or not. That will give everyone three months to plan.

Wild ass idea. Karaoke night.............

November 2013?

If you insist....