APG-L Archives
Archiver > APG > 2008-01 > 1201718125
From:
Subject: Re: [APG] Jones APGQ article
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:35:25 -0600 (CST)
Kerry Sandberg Scott said:
> I think because it appears, at least from my perspective, to have no benefit
> other than to put me in my place. I still don't understand how different
tiers
>will help "open up the organization" or serve anyone's particular
>needs. The fact is that this discussion has clearly shown that there are
>ALREADY many different kinds of people here, with many different
>backgrounds...in effect, we already have different "tiers" of people.
> Slapping labels on each person to make their tier evident to everyone doesn't
>appear (to me anyway) to serve any purpose; surely APG knows that there are
>people here for different reasons. Having a label of "associate" or
>"affiliate" or "junior" or whatever other euphamisms for
>"less than" we come up with will not help me find a niche; it will
>help me feel unwelcome. Very few people like to wear a label that says they
>are less than equal; I admire those among you who have said you'd happily do
>so, but human nature being what it is, I really believe you're a minority
>there.
text deleted
>I just don't understand what problem it is we're
>trying to solve here. I feel that I'm being asked to move to the back of the
>bus, and I'm not sure why.
------
I agree with much of what Kerry said -- I, too, don't understand what problem
we are attempting to solve with this discussion. The fact that I have no
certification (though I may one day) and take only a few clients, does not
impact other APG members. How will relegating me to a lesser category of
membership benefit anyone? Perhaps the general public needs more education
about the value of credentials, but making castes within APG will not solve
that problem.
Another person on the list (sorry, don't remember who it was) said that
APG "must" change, but I am still unclear about what problem is being
addressed. The only thing we "must" do is decide 1) whether there is a problem,
and if so, 2) define it and find out if the majority of members agree that this
is a problem to be solved, and then, 3) determine how to solve it. We're trying
to come up with a solution when there's no agreement yet as to what the problem
might be. As for me, I fail to see how dividing us into the haves and have-nots
will solve whatever problems APG has, or benefit its members.
Katharine Garstka
APG Member
Huntsville, Alabama
This thread: