90p Admin

MotM Sage participation. Guys, I have a call with Donald Deshaies next week as a follow up to my original call with him. My intention was to float a few ideas past him and I want to make sure that's ok. 1. Provide someone to do a Sage 100 Road Ahead session. 2. Some level of Sage exec participation - for the price of a standard ticket. 3. Discuss Sage providing a technical resource to participate in the conference. Maybe a session? Maybe just hanging out and being available for the group to interact with. Based on my previous conversation with Donald, I don't think a Publisher Membership will fly at this point but I do believe they might spring for a standard attendance costs - like they do with ITA. If we can get them there and see the level of involvement in the group, it will ease us in to a position where we ask them to contribute more. It will also have a huge benefit to the average 90 Minds member who doesn't otherwise get to directly interact with the Sage bigwigs. Thoughts? Any other topics to discuss? Any problems with the three topics listed? Note: I'm not going to him with a ""I have this approved"" but rather I'm trying to assess what is possible.

Sage pays to be a member at ITA and that gives them the ability to attend and also host events for their partners. I'm not sold we need to be any different. If people are looking for Sage face time I think the group could certainly arrange that during Summit. Sage pays to attend TPAC as well. I think to have someone come in as a technical resource for a session - then leave is fine. If they want more they had the opportunity but declined. I feel we are essentially going back to them and sending the wrong message about he value of the group.

Wayne, you started a thread on inviting Sage folks to the dinners. Would that not be the appropriate venue? Or is it a problem at the VP level. Just seeking clarity.

Here's my comment on that post - the invites that I was thinking about were more the everyday people we dealt with and not the execs or channel management. ""I am opposed to 90 Minds serving as a free BPAC for Sage (which was a path that Sage at one point seemed to be wondering about). If anyone in 90 Minds wants to serve for free - nominations are open. If anyone wants to sit and chew the fat with Sage and offer them suggestions on improving their channel/product/marketing - let them head to Irvine as some members are already doing. Sage is also available during their conferences. That's the time for us to organize a Sage get together. Lets not burn up our conference time rehashing group meetings that some of us have been in 15-20 times previously. Sage has directly and clearly been offered an opportunity to become involved with our group (for a fee) as they do with various other groups including TPAC, ITA, Sleeter, and numerous CPA events. They declined. Sage declined to contribute financially to our group. They said no (either directly or by inaction). If Sage will supply a speaker for ""Road Ahead"" or one or two other technical sessions where they clearly add value then that's fine by me. Speaker comes in. Speaks. Done. As for any type of open session to potentially advise Sage on what they've done wrong with the channel - let them pay us or pay an outside consulting firm big (big) $$. I am fine with some of the everyday (non-exec) Sage people socializing as guests. As to inviting the VP and up level people I guess I circle back to: ""Sage has directly and clearly been offered an opportunity to become involved with our group (for a fee) as they do with various other groups including TPAC, ITA, Sleeter, etc. They declined. Sage declined to contribute to our group. "" To go back to Sage now and say - ok well we were just kidding about needing to join - come on down and dominate our social and educational event -- my vote is no.

I hear and understand your position. Do we get value for our members by allowing the Sage execs to hear directly from our group and vice versa? I think it's a strong possibility. And, while it isn't the Publisher Membership pricing, having them pay to attend could be a first step in creating the Publisher Membership role for 2016. To me, this could be a good middle ground where we aren't opening up the group at no charge.

Before we can run we need to walk the Idea of a limited interaction as Peter outlined is reasonable. We still control the interaction and the message, the members benefit. Sage gets to see the power of 90 + minds.

What I recommend that we do is vote on a guest policy. This would essentially mean a guest comes once. Then they have enough information to decide on whether to join or not. The guest pays the full (not early) registration price. Invited guests need to meet membership requirements - so for example I couldn't bring Netsuite as a guest unless they met our membership requirements. This would apply to an event that is limited to members unless there was also a confidentiality or closed door session. This would also open events up to other guests - if a member wants to bring another consultant who qualifies but is not a part of their office/company. If a vendor member brings another vendor member who qualifies but is not from their firm.

@WayneSchulz @JeffSchwenk @ThereseLogeais @JimWoodhead Are we good as a group with Peter discussing this as something that is a possibility next week when he has his call scheduled? We aren't offering anything yet. I say yes.

I'm good with it.

Thumbs-up from me.

I would like to modify that to make the proposal as such. I believe a detailed plan for guests is better than one-off voting. This also clarifies that this is a one time guest policy. Proposed: The group may allow a member in good standing to bring a guest - who is a qualified prospective member - to a meeting provided the guest pays the full regular registration fee and meets membership requirements. Meeting guests attend only once under guest status. After attending as a guest they are expected to have enough information to decide whether to join 90 Minds. They may not normally attend again as a guest (even with a different member) without becoming a paid member. For the purposes of this policy a guest is defined as a candidate for membership to 90 Minds. It is NOT the same as a social guest (spouse) attending an after-hours event.

I'm good with a policy like this. ITA does it. But I don't see how Sage would qualify under that plan and that's my immediate question.

We've already spoken to them about the possibility of being a publisher member.

Or modify the verbiage to make them a free member and I vote no but that's only one of 6 and I'm pretty sure you will get the votes to give them a freebie.

Might have to change ""either consultant or vendor"" to ""either consultant, vendor, or publisher"".

Changed

Changed where?? I'm missing something.

See Robert's comment above as to ""either consultant, vendor or publisher.

I see that ... I don't see where it was ""changed"" - nevermind. I'm sure it's in some cloud document and will materialize down the line. :)

I think the clause I was referring to was removed which makes sense.

At this point lets either have a vote on the following or if the intent is to create a separate policy for Sage then please someone create that and amend the following: Policy motion regarding potential members attending as guests at 90 Minds events: The group may allow a member in good standing to bring a guest - who is a qualified prospective member - to an open meeting (ex. Meeting of the Minds) provided the guest pays the full regular registration fee and meets membership requirements. Meeting guests attend only once (on a per company basis) under guest status. After attending as a guest the company they represent is expected to have enough information to decide whether to join 90 Minds. Their company may not normally send another representative again as a guest (even with a different member) without becoming a paid member. For the purposes of this policy a guest is defined as a candidate for membership to 90 Minds. It is NOT the same as a social guest (spouse) attending an after-hours event.

So as I read this guest policy, a coworker of a SC member may only attend a MOTM event ONCE as a guest. They then have to join to attend future events. Is that a correct interpretation? While it is nice to aspire to be like the ITA, we aren't the ITA yet. Let's be careful of unintended consequences. The issue before us is whether to invite any Sage employee to mingle and/or conduct a session at the conference. I DON'T want Sage to be a regular member. We are just trying to get them to the table to see the power of the Minds. I think the Admin group has the ability to do this without creating a guest policy that has tremendous consequences. We've allowed guests in the past. The difference being discussed is that we are talking about SAGE now. I don't WANT Sage hanging around the entire event. I want a decision maker to come, mingle, be impressed with the group, then LEAVE! How do we do THAT?

>>So as I read this guest policy, a coworker of a SC member may only attend a MOTM event ONCE as a guest. They then have to join to attend future events. Is that a correct interpretation? No. We have pricing for members (within Socialcast) to attend and members (same firm but not in Socialcast). The pricing for same firm but not in Socialcast is higher so that we may recognize the members who've joined and (hopefully) participated in Socialcast. Same firm members do not have guest status - they are members of 90 Minds. Peter invited Sage to join as a publisher member and my understanding is they declined (you can read my thoughts above). Last I had heard Sage basically ignored Peter and never got back to him. There's a myriad of reasons why we went to Sage about becoming a member. I believe we had a call on this but the short of it is that Deborah Nelson was asking about creating some type of NDA bound BPAC-like meeting with our members. I felt it was better to be proactive about the relationship Sage could potentially have with 90 Minds before discussions went further. So I disagree and vote no on allowing Sage's VP of Channel management attend for free unless we have a written agreement that outlines what a guest visit entails. (ie - one and done). I am ok on inviting Sage people who are not management level to social events where members have a more personal relationship with. The reason that I propose a guest policy is so that we are all clear and have no disagreements in the future when someone asks if Sage leadership (or any non-member) can attend. I would like to get Peter an answer without him spending a week waiting. If you have a better model to pull from then by all means I would welcome you to amend the motion and put this in writing so we can all vote and have a policy going forward. ITA is a group that's been around for many years, regularly pulls 250 consultant and vendor members to meetings 2x yearly, and is closest in concept to our group. If you have a better group to pull from then let's discuss that. A motion by you could also be t allow Sage any variety of free access. All I ask is that we put it to a vote so the next time the issue comes up with have a recorded policy about how we are going to deal with potential members who have declined to join the group. >> I want a decision maker to come, mingle, be impressed with the group, then LEAVE! How do we do THAT? You create a guest policy which applies across any guest coming to 90 Minds who is not from a member firm. That way we're all clear on our conversation that Sage management could be invited once without joining but that it's not going to be a annual recurring no cost event for them. Thank you.

Also just to be sure we are talking about the same thing -- a guest is someone we invite to attend any or all of the conference. This is separate from a speaker who we may invite to come in, give a talk , leave. I do not believe we need to have any restrictions on speakers who come then leave after their session. We can change the guest policy to clarify that.

I think a guest policy makes sensend I would support it. I don't see as it applies to Sage and the issue at hand unless the proposal is that they attend the 2015 MotM as a guest with the intention that they are required to become a Publisher Member if they want to attend in the future? Regardless, I never said that Sage would attend for free this time. I said they would pay for a standard ticket so they would have some skin in the game. Sorry if I didn't make that point clear.

Someone make a motion so we can got on your idea. This will be in writing with a record of votes.

Per Article IV of the bylaws, we would need to make the motion and have the official vote at the meeting on December 4th. Adjustments will need to be made to the ByLaws at the next Annual meeting.

We can hold an informal vote and ratify it on December 4th.

On the agenda

Is there an agenda for today? I don't see it on Gdocs.

Here's the agenda for today: https://docs.google.com/a/community.90minds.com/document/d/1RJe6OM91x2errNlJRP_qItzPBJuynJ_oBeTc94RUy-I/edit?usp=sharing

Latest financials. Will attempt to put them on Google...

Is that typewriter typing on those financials?

Wow, someone looking at them... It would appear to be, but in reality, it is Adobe Acrobat Pro Extended. Great tool for editing PDF's..... BTW, what IS a typewriter???

I look at them. I just don't always make fun of them.