DDash
07-15 12:22 AM
Just kidding....donated $25...Way to Go IV!
wallpaper Skittles - Taste The Rainbow
chanduv23
11-20 07:48 PM
Don't get me wrong. There are so many good lawyers. I have talked to few of them who are reputed and didn't even charge me for my first call. However what I said above is based on this (http://immigration-information.com/forums/showpost.php?p=18642&postcount=9). If you read entire thread, you would know what I meant.
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5293
"As those of you who have read this forum for many years know, I believe that it is a waste of time and money for someone to try to maintain H status while waiting for AOS approval. I know that the conventional Internet wisdom is that this is the thing to do. The problem is, proponents of that position cannot offer any legal or rational authority for their position.
There are a number of law firms that represent employers only. They do work on behalf of their clients' employees, but they don't directly represent those employees. The employees are third party beneficiaries of their work.
While it costs an employer more to keep an employee in H status, many companies undertake this cost because they know that if an employee wishes to move elsewhere, it is more difficult to do so if the new employer has to file an H transfer petition, rather than simply recording the new employee's EAD number.
If an attorney represents the company, and not the employee, then the attorney has no duty to the employee and does not have to advise the employee as to what is best for him or her. Also, attorney's make far more money filing H petitions as opposed to filing EAD/AP applications."
So one MUST ALWAYS keep EAD in hand till 485 is adjujicated.
This is a very interesting find. But lets keep doing more research until we are concrete about whats the best option
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5293
"As those of you who have read this forum for many years know, I believe that it is a waste of time and money for someone to try to maintain H status while waiting for AOS approval. I know that the conventional Internet wisdom is that this is the thing to do. The problem is, proponents of that position cannot offer any legal or rational authority for their position.
There are a number of law firms that represent employers only. They do work on behalf of their clients' employees, but they don't directly represent those employees. The employees are third party beneficiaries of their work.
While it costs an employer more to keep an employee in H status, many companies undertake this cost because they know that if an employee wishes to move elsewhere, it is more difficult to do so if the new employer has to file an H transfer petition, rather than simply recording the new employee's EAD number.
If an attorney represents the company, and not the employee, then the attorney has no duty to the employee and does not have to advise the employee as to what is best for him or her. Also, attorney's make far more money filing H petitions as opposed to filing EAD/AP applications."
So one MUST ALWAYS keep EAD in hand till 485 is adjujicated.
This is a very interesting find. But lets keep doing more research until we are concrete about whats the best option
indio0617
03-09 10:55 AM
Sen Feinstein Amendment : 6303; provides an exception for refugees, aliens who apply for asylum (fleeing persecution, dictatorship) to waive passport fraud if they have comitted any.
2011 taste rainbow quotes. skittles taste rainbow. skittles taste rainbow.
NKR
04-02 08:26 AM
that might be your attitude. some people have a different opinion and dont like to bend over when circumstances try to screw them. If you pay for something and get a lemon you might be ok with living with it and moving on, saying its non-refundable. Many others dont share that view. They'll fight for a replacement, a fix, some solution to the problem.
If all you can do is bend over, then move on, you are wasting your time on IV.
Ouch, that got to hurt. Mr D.E.D. why are you inviting dard. why don't you just disco?.
If all you can do is bend over, then move on, you are wasting your time on IV.
Ouch, that got to hurt. Mr D.E.D. why are you inviting dard. why don't you just disco?.
more...
skv
06-20 01:14 PM
Atalanta sucks
Yes, maybe we try for pre-approved labor before July end?
Yes, maybe we try for pre-approved labor before July end?
amitjoey
07-05 05:08 PM
Can you please tell me the senators office you called so that I can call them too ..:) more calls the better
CALL your state senators. State senators are interested in listening from people who reside in their respective states, Cause they technically represent them. So they want to hear what affects their constituents.
Call your state senators first, then call your house reps, (remember logfren is a house rep) and then the others.
CALL your state senators. State senators are interested in listening from people who reside in their respective states, Cause they technically represent them. So they want to hear what affects their constituents.
Call your state senators first, then call your house reps, (remember logfren is a house rep) and then the others.
more...
Green.Tech
06-17 09:27 AM
...to reach $20k.
Contribute folks!
Contribute folks!
2010 taste the rainbow quotes
Kodi
06-16 01:57 PM
Mine is just over a month but won't be clearing for a while since there's lot more cases pending that were filed before me. Can I still email/Call?
They don't seem to be going in any order. Some applications from April was cleared recently where as Feb March is still pending..
They don't seem to be going in any order. Some applications from April was cleared recently where as Feb March is still pending..
more...
pointlesswait
06-18 11:04 AM
contributed 50 today+enrolled for monthly too..
hair house skittles taste rainbow.
srini1976
07-20 04:39 PM
Is there a way to bring up this Bill again without the H1B part. My guess the H1B part killed it!:mad:
Lets try our best by supporting IV!
Lets try our best by supporting IV!
more...
Green.Tech
06-02 04:46 PM
Wake up people!
hot taste rainbow quotes. skittles taste rainbow. SKITTLES TASTE THE RAINBOW;
eb3_nepa
04-25 02:51 PM
I just wanted to bring it to the table...I think all of us have the right to voice our opinion & looks like we all have in the case. Now it should be upto the IV to take it or leave it. They are the leaders in this initative & let them make the final call on if it needs to be part of our agenda or not. Thanks
I agree with u rajeev. Ideas are always welcome, u never know what u may learn. Guys pls treat these threads as information and debate with enthusiasm. If you dont like something being said then tell the forum why u feel differently. Unless it is something totally ridiculous and off topic, we shud allow different ideas and discussions. If someone here feels it is a waste of time, then dont read that thread. :)
I agree with u rajeev. Ideas are always welcome, u never know what u may learn. Guys pls treat these threads as information and debate with enthusiasm. If you dont like something being said then tell the forum why u feel differently. Unless it is something totally ridiculous and off topic, we shud allow different ideas and discussions. If someone here feels it is a waste of time, then dont read that thread. :)
more...
house taste rainbow quotes. Rainbows after it rains. How? taste rainbow quotes
pappu
08-12 10:55 AM
Senate Passage of Border Security Legislation
August 12, 2010
Today, I come to the floor to seek unanimous consent to pass a smart, tough, and effective $600 million bill that will significantly enhance the security and integrity of our nation’s southern border—which currently lacks the resources needed to fully combat the drug smugglers, gun-runners, human-traffickers, money launderers and other organized criminals that seek to do harm to innocent Americans along our border….
The best part of this border package, Mr. President, is that it is fully paid for and does not increase the deficit by a single penny. In actuality, the Congressional Budget Office has determined that this bill will yield a direct savings to taxpayers of $50 million….
The emergency border funds we are passing today are fully paid for by assessing fees on certain types of companies who hire foreign workers using certain types of visas in a way that Congress did not intend. I want to take a moment to explain exactly what we are doing in this bill a little further because I want everyone to clearly understand how these offsets are designed.
In 1990, Congress realized that the world was changing rapidly and that technological innovations like the internet were creating a high demand in the United States for high-tech workers to create new technologies and products. Consequently, Congress created the H-1B visa program to allow U.S. employers to hire foreign tech workers in special circumstances when they could not find an American citizen who was qualified for the job.
Many of the companies that use this program today are using the program in the exact way Congress intended. That is, these companies (like Microsoft, IBM, and Intel) are hiring bright foreign students educated in our American universities to work in the U.S. for 6 or 7 years to invent new product lines and technologies so that Microsoft, IBM, and Intel can sell more products to the American public. Then—at the expiration of the H-1B visa period—these companies apply for these talented workers to earn green cards and stay with the company.
When the H-1B visa program is used in this manner, it is a good program for everyone involved. It is good for the company. It is good for the worker. And it is good for the American people who benefit from the products and jobs created by the innovation of the H-1B visa holder.
Every day, companies like Oracle, Cisco, Apple and others use the H-1B visa program in the exact way I have just described—and their use of the program has greatly benefitted this country.
But recently, some companies have decided to exploit an unintended loophole in the H-1B visa program to use the program in a manner that many in Congress, including myself, do not believe is consistent with the program’s intent.
Rather than being a company that makes something, and simply needs to bring in a talented foreign worker to help innovate and create new products and technologies—these other companies are essentially creating “multinational temp agencies” that were never contemplated when the H-1B program was created.
The business model of these newer companies is not to make any new products or technologies like Microsoft or Apple does. Instead, their business model is to bring foreign tech workers into the United States who are willing to accept less pay than their American counterparts, place these workers into other companies in exchange for a “consulting fee,” and transfer these workers from company to company in order to maximize profits from placement fees. In other words, these companies are petitioning for foreign workers simply to then turn around and provide these same workers to other companies who need cheap labor for various short term projects.
Don’t take my word for it. If you look at the marketing materials of some of the companies that fall within the scope covered by today’s legislation, their materials boast about their “outsourcing expertise” and say that their advantage is their ability to conduct what they call “labor arbitrage” which is—in their own words—“transferring work functions to a lower cost environment for increased savings.”
The business model used by these companies within the United States is creating three major negative side effects. First, it is ruining the reputation of the H-1B program, which is overwhelmingly used by good actors for beneficial purposes. Second, according to the Economic Policy institute, it is lowering the wages for American tech workers already in the marketplace. Third, it is also discouraging many of our smartest students from entering the technology industry in the first place. Students can see that paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for advanced schooling is not worth the cost when the market is being flooded with foreign temporary workers willing to do tech-work for far less pay because their foreign education was much cheaper and they intend to move back home when their visa expires to a country where the cost of living is far less expensive.
This type of use of the H-1B visa program will be addressed as part of comprehensive immigration reform and will likely be dramatically restricted. We will be reforming the legal immigration system to encourage the world’s best and brightest individuals to come to the United States and create the new technologies and businesses that will employ countless American workers, but will discourage businesses from using our immigration laws as a means to obtain temporary and less-expensive foreign labor to replace capable American workers.
Nevertheless, I do wish to clarify a previous mischaracterization of these firms, where I labeled them as “chop shops.” That statement was incorrect, and I wish to acknowledge that. In the tech industry, these firms are sometimes known as “body shops” and that’s what I should have said.
While I strongly oppose the manner in which these firms are using the H-1B visa to accomplish objectives that Congress never intended, it would be unfortunate if anyone concluded from my remarks that these firms are engaging in illegal behavior.
But I also want to make clear that the purpose of this fee is not to target businesses from any particular country. Many news articles have reported that the only companies that will be affected by this fee are companies based in India and that, ipso facto, the purpose of this legislation must be to target Indian IT companies.
Well, it is simply untrue that the purpose of this legislation is to target Indian companies. We are simply raising fees for businesses who use the H-1B visa to do things that are contrary to the program’s original intent.
Visa fees will only increase for companies with more than 50 workers who continue to employ more than 50 percent of their employees through the H-1B program. Congress does not want the H-1B visa program to be a vehicle for creating multinational temp agencies where workers do not know what projects they will be working on—or what cities they will be working in—when they enter the country.
The fee is based solely upon the business model of the company, not the location of the company.
If you are using the H-1B visa to innovate new products and technologies for your own company to sell, that is a good thing regardless of whether the company was originally founded in India, Ireland, or Indiana.
But if you are using the H-1B visa to run a glorified international temp agency for tech workers in contravention of the spirit of the program, I and my colleagues believe that you should have to pay a higher fee to ensure that American workers are not losing their jobs because of unintended uses of the visa program that were never contemplated when the program was created.
This belief is consistent regardless of whether the company using these staffing practices was founded in Bangalore, Beijing, or Boston.
Raising the fees for companies hiring more than 50 percent of their workforce through foreign visas will accomplish two important goals. First, it will provide the necessary funds to secure our border without raising taxes or adding to the deficit. Second, it will level the playing field for American workers so that they do not lose out on good jobs here in America because it is cheaper to bring in a foreign worker rather than hire an American worker.
Let me tell you what objective folks around the world are saying about the impact of this fee increase. In an August 6, 2010, Wall Street Journal article, Avinash Vashistha—the CEO of a Bangalore based off-shoring advisory consulting firm—told the Journal that the new fee in this bill “would accelerate Indian firms’ plans to hire more American-born workers in the U.S.” What’s wrong with that? In an August 7, 2010 Economic Times Article, Jeya Kumar, a CEO of a top IT company, said that this bill would “erode cost arbitrage and cause a change in the operational model of Indian offshore providers.”
The leaders of this business model are agreeing that our bill will make it more expensive to bring in foreign tech workers to compete with American tech workers for jobs here in America. That means these companies are going to start having to hire U.S. tech workers again.
So Mr. President, this bill is not only a responsible border security bill, it has the dual advantage of creating more high-paying American jobs.
Finally, Mr. President, I want to be clear about one other thing. Even though passing this bill will secure our border, I again say that the only way to fully restore the rule of law to our entire immigration system is by passing comprehensive immigration reform….
The urgency for immigration reform cannot be overstated because it is so overdue. The time for excuses is now over, it is now time to get to work.
August 12, 2010
Today, I come to the floor to seek unanimous consent to pass a smart, tough, and effective $600 million bill that will significantly enhance the security and integrity of our nation’s southern border—which currently lacks the resources needed to fully combat the drug smugglers, gun-runners, human-traffickers, money launderers and other organized criminals that seek to do harm to innocent Americans along our border….
The best part of this border package, Mr. President, is that it is fully paid for and does not increase the deficit by a single penny. In actuality, the Congressional Budget Office has determined that this bill will yield a direct savings to taxpayers of $50 million….
The emergency border funds we are passing today are fully paid for by assessing fees on certain types of companies who hire foreign workers using certain types of visas in a way that Congress did not intend. I want to take a moment to explain exactly what we are doing in this bill a little further because I want everyone to clearly understand how these offsets are designed.
In 1990, Congress realized that the world was changing rapidly and that technological innovations like the internet were creating a high demand in the United States for high-tech workers to create new technologies and products. Consequently, Congress created the H-1B visa program to allow U.S. employers to hire foreign tech workers in special circumstances when they could not find an American citizen who was qualified for the job.
Many of the companies that use this program today are using the program in the exact way Congress intended. That is, these companies (like Microsoft, IBM, and Intel) are hiring bright foreign students educated in our American universities to work in the U.S. for 6 or 7 years to invent new product lines and technologies so that Microsoft, IBM, and Intel can sell more products to the American public. Then—at the expiration of the H-1B visa period—these companies apply for these talented workers to earn green cards and stay with the company.
When the H-1B visa program is used in this manner, it is a good program for everyone involved. It is good for the company. It is good for the worker. And it is good for the American people who benefit from the products and jobs created by the innovation of the H-1B visa holder.
Every day, companies like Oracle, Cisco, Apple and others use the H-1B visa program in the exact way I have just described—and their use of the program has greatly benefitted this country.
But recently, some companies have decided to exploit an unintended loophole in the H-1B visa program to use the program in a manner that many in Congress, including myself, do not believe is consistent with the program’s intent.
Rather than being a company that makes something, and simply needs to bring in a talented foreign worker to help innovate and create new products and technologies—these other companies are essentially creating “multinational temp agencies” that were never contemplated when the H-1B program was created.
The business model of these newer companies is not to make any new products or technologies like Microsoft or Apple does. Instead, their business model is to bring foreign tech workers into the United States who are willing to accept less pay than their American counterparts, place these workers into other companies in exchange for a “consulting fee,” and transfer these workers from company to company in order to maximize profits from placement fees. In other words, these companies are petitioning for foreign workers simply to then turn around and provide these same workers to other companies who need cheap labor for various short term projects.
Don’t take my word for it. If you look at the marketing materials of some of the companies that fall within the scope covered by today’s legislation, their materials boast about their “outsourcing expertise” and say that their advantage is their ability to conduct what they call “labor arbitrage” which is—in their own words—“transferring work functions to a lower cost environment for increased savings.”
The business model used by these companies within the United States is creating three major negative side effects. First, it is ruining the reputation of the H-1B program, which is overwhelmingly used by good actors for beneficial purposes. Second, according to the Economic Policy institute, it is lowering the wages for American tech workers already in the marketplace. Third, it is also discouraging many of our smartest students from entering the technology industry in the first place. Students can see that paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for advanced schooling is not worth the cost when the market is being flooded with foreign temporary workers willing to do tech-work for far less pay because their foreign education was much cheaper and they intend to move back home when their visa expires to a country where the cost of living is far less expensive.
This type of use of the H-1B visa program will be addressed as part of comprehensive immigration reform and will likely be dramatically restricted. We will be reforming the legal immigration system to encourage the world’s best and brightest individuals to come to the United States and create the new technologies and businesses that will employ countless American workers, but will discourage businesses from using our immigration laws as a means to obtain temporary and less-expensive foreign labor to replace capable American workers.
Nevertheless, I do wish to clarify a previous mischaracterization of these firms, where I labeled them as “chop shops.” That statement was incorrect, and I wish to acknowledge that. In the tech industry, these firms are sometimes known as “body shops” and that’s what I should have said.
While I strongly oppose the manner in which these firms are using the H-1B visa to accomplish objectives that Congress never intended, it would be unfortunate if anyone concluded from my remarks that these firms are engaging in illegal behavior.
But I also want to make clear that the purpose of this fee is not to target businesses from any particular country. Many news articles have reported that the only companies that will be affected by this fee are companies based in India and that, ipso facto, the purpose of this legislation must be to target Indian IT companies.
Well, it is simply untrue that the purpose of this legislation is to target Indian companies. We are simply raising fees for businesses who use the H-1B visa to do things that are contrary to the program’s original intent.
Visa fees will only increase for companies with more than 50 workers who continue to employ more than 50 percent of their employees through the H-1B program. Congress does not want the H-1B visa program to be a vehicle for creating multinational temp agencies where workers do not know what projects they will be working on—or what cities they will be working in—when they enter the country.
The fee is based solely upon the business model of the company, not the location of the company.
If you are using the H-1B visa to innovate new products and technologies for your own company to sell, that is a good thing regardless of whether the company was originally founded in India, Ireland, or Indiana.
But if you are using the H-1B visa to run a glorified international temp agency for tech workers in contravention of the spirit of the program, I and my colleagues believe that you should have to pay a higher fee to ensure that American workers are not losing their jobs because of unintended uses of the visa program that were never contemplated when the program was created.
This belief is consistent regardless of whether the company using these staffing practices was founded in Bangalore, Beijing, or Boston.
Raising the fees for companies hiring more than 50 percent of their workforce through foreign visas will accomplish two important goals. First, it will provide the necessary funds to secure our border without raising taxes or adding to the deficit. Second, it will level the playing field for American workers so that they do not lose out on good jobs here in America because it is cheaper to bring in a foreign worker rather than hire an American worker.
Let me tell you what objective folks around the world are saying about the impact of this fee increase. In an August 6, 2010, Wall Street Journal article, Avinash Vashistha—the CEO of a Bangalore based off-shoring advisory consulting firm—told the Journal that the new fee in this bill “would accelerate Indian firms’ plans to hire more American-born workers in the U.S.” What’s wrong with that? In an August 7, 2010 Economic Times Article, Jeya Kumar, a CEO of a top IT company, said that this bill would “erode cost arbitrage and cause a change in the operational model of Indian offshore providers.”
The leaders of this business model are agreeing that our bill will make it more expensive to bring in foreign tech workers to compete with American tech workers for jobs here in America. That means these companies are going to start having to hire U.S. tech workers again.
So Mr. President, this bill is not only a responsible border security bill, it has the dual advantage of creating more high-paying American jobs.
Finally, Mr. President, I want to be clear about one other thing. Even though passing this bill will secure our border, I again say that the only way to fully restore the rule of law to our entire immigration system is by passing comprehensive immigration reform….
The urgency for immigration reform cannot be overstated because it is so overdue. The time for excuses is now over, it is now time to get to work.
tattoo taste rainbow quotes. skittles taste rainbow. SKITTLES - TASTE THE RAINBOW;
kumhyd2
07-10 01:21 AM
Is there a SoCal IV member list? Any one from San diego?
more...
pictures taste rainbow quotes. skittles taste rainbow. taste the rainbowquot;; taste
babu123
09-09 08:22 PM
Pappu,
I work at NPR and joined recently. I am going to work with my manager next week and convince them to get coverage for our rally.
I work at NPR and joined recently. I am going to work with my manager next week and convince them to get coverage for our rally.
dresses hairstyles taste rainbow
yogkc
11-10 12:55 PM
Jimi thanks for taking the lead.
Count me as well. I live in LA County - San Fernando Valley
Count me as well. I live in LA County - San Fernando Valley
more...
makeup taste rainbow quotes. skittles taste rainbow. quot;SkittlesTaste the
akhilmahajan
07-15 09:14 PM
Total So far 1735.00. We are Well short of our target of 2000.00. Let's Go Guys. $5 to IV = Hope for GC.
COME ON FOLKS HELP IV HELP YOURSELF.
COME ON FOLKS HELP IV HELP YOURSELF.
girlfriend TAGS: rainbow taste
Milind123
09-13 02:24 PM
One more contribution needed for this round. Please make me go from this :( to :D
hairstyles to “Taste the Rainbow” as
santb1975
07-15 09:47 PM
Let us see if this campaign gets participation from SoCal members who do not visit IV boards on a day to day basis
CantLeaveAmerica
04-01 01:26 AM
We're much better off here in the US when you compare our compatriots suffering in Britain. Britain has enforced a lot more regulations on immigrants, much to their chagrin.
Let's grin and bear it and hope to see the 'green' light at the end of the tunnel.
That's exactly the point..USCIS is HEADED by fools...the problem lies within...the heads dont really care if their staff is underpaid and over-worked..but the fact of it is that they just don't have the money nor manpower to get the work done. When USCIS adjudicated all those cases in 2002, it was not of their own volition but because Congress mandated it..6 years later they dont care for the immigrants..u think they'd (policy makers) care 2 hoots for the the USCIS officers...just take a look at the Infopass centers...from my experience I havent seen more than 2 officers helping customers at a time..no money..no manpower
Let's grin and bear it and hope to see the 'green' light at the end of the tunnel.
That's exactly the point..USCIS is HEADED by fools...the problem lies within...the heads dont really care if their staff is underpaid and over-worked..but the fact of it is that they just don't have the money nor manpower to get the work done. When USCIS adjudicated all those cases in 2002, it was not of their own volition but because Congress mandated it..6 years later they dont care for the immigrants..u think they'd (policy makers) care 2 hoots for the the USCIS officers...just take a look at the Infopass centers...from my experience I havent seen more than 2 officers helping customers at a time..no money..no manpower
browncow
07-05 06:27 PM
I am very intrigued by this thread and I would love to see a change in status quo too. However, I am missing one very important piece of information....Who are the proposed candidates and what is their agenda??
Mbawa, please don't take this as criticism but how exactly would a change in the IV core improve the current status quo? If you have any ideas, what has stopped you from using IV as a platform and taking a lead?
Again, I would love to see things improving for the EB folks but I really missing the point on how this suggestion would get us there. I have great respect for the IV core as I know it and personally I will never be able to do even 10% of the job they have done. SO if there are folks who can do better than the present core, I would love to hear their ideas and contribute to the cause.
If this is just one of the several threads that are started with no real effort or thought put in to come up with an actual and feasible solution, then this is doing more harm than good. Again I am really open to listening like a lot other silent/passive members.
Cheers.
This is not a transparent organisation, we do not know who the president or the exec committee of this organisation is. Every now and then, we hear about stating the facts in our profile before posting questions.
But we know very little about the exec committee, the 'About us' has the agenda that IV is fightin for, nothing at all about the people behind it.
Who do i thank for such a nice organisation? I have no idea.
coming to the nomination for the exec commitee, there are lots of self motivated people around here, motivation can come from people languishing with unjust RFEs, name check limbos, 10 year old petitions, members who know they can add to the organisation, and the core, they would know people who they think are capable of carrying the torch on with equal or more zest.
Most of the time, leaders of of non-profits have to be pushed to assume their roles, rather then they coming forward to lead.
Mbawa, please don't take this as criticism but how exactly would a change in the IV core improve the current status quo? If you have any ideas, what has stopped you from using IV as a platform and taking a lead?
Again, I would love to see things improving for the EB folks but I really missing the point on how this suggestion would get us there. I have great respect for the IV core as I know it and personally I will never be able to do even 10% of the job they have done. SO if there are folks who can do better than the present core, I would love to hear their ideas and contribute to the cause.
If this is just one of the several threads that are started with no real effort or thought put in to come up with an actual and feasible solution, then this is doing more harm than good. Again I am really open to listening like a lot other silent/passive members.
Cheers.
This is not a transparent organisation, we do not know who the president or the exec committee of this organisation is. Every now and then, we hear about stating the facts in our profile before posting questions.
But we know very little about the exec committee, the 'About us' has the agenda that IV is fightin for, nothing at all about the people behind it.
Who do i thank for such a nice organisation? I have no idea.
coming to the nomination for the exec commitee, there are lots of self motivated people around here, motivation can come from people languishing with unjust RFEs, name check limbos, 10 year old petitions, members who know they can add to the organisation, and the core, they would know people who they think are capable of carrying the torch on with equal or more zest.
Most of the time, leaders of of non-profits have to be pushed to assume their roles, rather then they coming forward to lead.
No comments:
Post a Comment