A suggested improvement to itSMF USA Bylaws

The itSMF USA Bylaws are good, but one phrase describing its Purpose caused me (and others) to double-take and may need some re-work.

In my version of the Bylaws (April 2008) the very first clause under "the specific objectives of the Corporation" is

To provide for commercial organizations and vendors of products and services a forum in which to exchange and share experiences which will assist organizations to manage their IT services in accordance with the best practices embodied in the Office of Government Commerce IT Infrastructure Library.

Firstly, is it just me or does "commercial organizations and vendors of products and services" sound a bit narrow? How about public bodies? Academics interested in ITSM? Annoying little bloggers from some goddam island that doesn't allow our nuke warships? One would hope itSMF is a happy family for anyone with an interest in ITSM and the membership fee.

Secondly, since when did itSMF explicitly link itself to ITIL? There are other BOKs, frameworks and standards around.

So the IT Skeptic thinks that bit needs some re-work. As if that matters. "ooh ooh quick Ken, the IT Skeptic says we need to fix the bylaws. Let's work all weekend to get it right". I don't think so.

BTW, the IT Skeptic holds that all membership organisations such as itSMF should publish their bylaws (and accounts and busienss rules and processes and minutes and...) on a public website. Why not?


itSMF USA Bylaws change

Paragraph (a) of Article 3 is not superior to the other 8 paragraphs. The issue of concern is addressed in (h). And it would be hey Sallie, the President elect and chair of the Governance committee, or hey David, President of itSMF USA, not ooh Ken, he's one of those international folks these days.

Good point on public disclosure and transparency is a principle itSMF USA is trying to embrace.

Mike Walter
President, Atlanta LIG itSMF USA

HP have been passing the itSMFUSA baton amongst themselves

Ah yes thanks Mike. I had forgotten that HP have been passing the itSMFUSA baton amongst themselves. The two Kens' names were on the April version of the Bylaws that I have seen.

There may indeed be another clause that broadens the scope of the organisation. I'm just saying that having the first clause launch into discussion of the money-engine may not be the impression the itSMFUSA seeks to give. Or it might.

Syndicate content