SEDS-SpaceGen Partnership

From SEDSWiki

Contents 1 Proposal 1.1 Proposed Changes 1.2 Will Not Change 2 Discussion Thoughts 2.1 For the merger/partnership (by Kirk Kittell) 2.2 Against the merger/partnership (by Josh Neubert) 2.3 Response to argument against merger/partnership (by William Pomerantz) 2.4 Different Viewpoint (by Pradeep Nair)

Proposal

Proposed Changes

Below is a table outlining the proposed changes next to the current status.

Proposed Status	Current Status
1. SEDS will be incorporated in the District of Columbia as a part of the Space Generation Foundation	1. SEDS is incorporated in the State of Massachusetts but has not kept its status up-to-date
2. SEDS will function under the 501(c)(3) non-profit status of the Space Generation Foundation and will not have to annually maintain this status	2. SEDS does not have active 501(c)(3) non-profit status, but has the ability to regain this status independently and maintain it annually
3. SEDS will have an bank account under the SpaceGen main account, but will have sole access to the money in this account	3. SEDS does not have a bank account but could open one
4. The SpaceGen executive board will serve as the SEDS Board of Advisors	4. SEDS does not have a Board of Advisors
5. SEDS and SpaceGen will share a common electronic user database	5. SEDS does not currently have an electronic user database

Will Not Change

Below is a list of things that will not change with this merger/partnership.

• SEDS is still composed entirely of students, and all of its projects and directed and managed by students.
• SEDS will maintain indepedent sovereignty over itself through a Council of Chapters and Executive Board.
• The Council of Chapters and Executive Board are still entirely composed of students.
• SEDS will operate an independent website whose webmaster will be a SEDS member.

Discussion Thoughts

For the merger/partnership (by Kirk Kittell)

'Merger' is an intimidating word with negative connotations in this era of corporate buyouts and takeovers. I will list the benefits of this maneuver and the steps which must occur before it is officially recognized.

Why merge?

1. SEDS has a history of dormant periods due to the transient nature of the key leadership.
2. SEDS does not have a coherent organization for alumni who can benefit SEDS through financial donations and mentoring relationships.
3. SEDS has not had an active 501(c)(3) status with the Internal Revenue Service since 1996.
4. The SEDS web page, www.seds.org, is not regularly updated and does not have an adequate array of current web tools.
5. SEDS does not have a current bank account.

How does a merger help?

1. Members who graduate from SEDS will have an official network, SpaceGen, to join and activities to be involved in.
2. SEDS alumni will have access to tools provided to SpaceGen by SpaceAlumni.com for communication, job posting, and finding current students to mentor.
3. SpaceGen is a currently registered 501(c)(3) organization.
4. Again, merging with SpaceGen will give us access to the tools at SpaceAlumni.com: an effective chat system for online meetings, job posting board, powerful login and database tools for members, and online calendar. A common web site for SpaceGen will incorporate all of the merging organizations in one web portal with prominent links to each. (For example, see www.virgin.com. Primary components of Virgin are listed across the top as tabs. The tabs are common to each compenent's web page. Each company has its own page with a similar style. Replace the linked tabs with SEDS, SpaceGen, etc., and this is what is available to us)
5. SEDS will maintain a single bank account with SpaceGen. Funds raised specifically by SEDS or for SEDS will be earmarked and only available to SEDS.

These plans were created with help from SEDS members and alumni; we respect the autonomy of SEDS and the leaders which have been forged in the organization. If merged with SpaceGen, SEDS will continue to operate as SEDS. As students we must guard the unique voice and perspective that we have. The proposed merger will prevent our voice from periodically going silent.

Against the merger/partnership (by Josh Neubert)

I think we are attempting to move forward with something before we have properly thought out all the repercussions, and more importantly, before we have gotten proper consent from those we will be repercussing (yes I know that is not a real word).

I fully support what we are doing with SpaceGen and I really think we are beginning what will become an amazing organization with millions of dollars to put on programs that change the lives of billions of young people around the universe! However, I am no longer of the mindset that our actions on the SEDS-Spacegen merger are proceeding in the right direction. Students are still students, and by definition still learning (or at least supposed to be). We are attempting to take all the mistakes out of SEDS, thereby relieving the SEDS membership of their primary mode of learning. Although I previously stated otherwise, I do not believe that the SEDS bank accounts should be merged with Spacegen; I do not believe that fundraising for SEDS projects should be taken on by Spacegen; and I do not believe that the 501(c)3 status should be merged with Spacegen. The entire purpose of SEDS is to provide a forum where students can rise to challenges and become future leaders of the space industry. If we go about taking on all of these tasks, the student membership of SEDS won't be. I recognize that by us taking these on, we would be providing much in terms of stability to SEDS. However, we would be taking away many of the experiences that are required to create leaders in any industry. Basically we would be setting back the learning curve of SEDS members by approaching this merger in the manner we have been discussing it.

We should be looking at the SpaceGen relationship to SEDS as more of a Parent-Child relationship. That is a parent who is there to support the child and let it grow from its own experiences and mistakes, not the beerguzzling abussive type of parent... well maybe beerguzzling...

Below are a few bullet points on how my mind thinks we could be better approaching this merger:

1. Take a step back from the SEDS-SpaceGen Merger - I do not mean that we should not continue full steam ahead on what we are doing with getting spacegen organized and pursuing sponsorship for our projects and all of that. I just think that we should treat the merger with SEDS as a seperate beast, and put a little more thought into it.
2. Involve the SEDS board in an iterative discussion on the Merger idea - I know that a few of us are on (or were on) the SEDS board but we need to involve that entire board when discussing the merger.
3. Create a document outlining/detailing everything about how SEDS and SpaceGen will be connected after this "merger" - I think we started this in the past, but we should set some sort of deadline to aim at for having a final document signed by Spacegen and SEDS that outlines everything about what we're discussing (for a date I would suggest the SpaceVision conference). The creation of this document must be an iterative process with the SEDS board.
4. Spacegen should not fundraise for SEDS project - fundraising is something that students need to learn!
5. Spacegen should support SEDS with funds from its own "travel scholarship" (Mark will have more on that I think).
6. Spacegen should support SEDS with infrastructure and other aid but not provide it to them - SEDS members need to work through these issues on their own, Spacegen could be a great advisory board to SEDS, and again provide funding (in the form of scholarships, awards, etc), ideas, events, and other items to support SEDS.

I know that Mark brought up similar ideas a while ago, and a lot of this has been said before, but I really think we need to revisit all of this. I am not saying we should slow down at all on the SpaceGen front itself, just that we take more caution with the SEDS side of things.

As an action item I can work on a draft of this document (I know we started something similar before), but please lets have some more discussion on how we proceed with any SEDS merger.

Response to argument against merger/partnership (by William Pomerantz)

Regarding Josh's email: while I certainly can't disagree with his facts, I must say that I largely disagree with his conclusions. Though I certainly see the value of learning from one's mistakes, I know that I personally would have much preferred to be the leader of a chapter of a bigger, smoother functioning organization back when I ran Harvard SEDS. In my opinion, running a particular chapter and coordinating events that will always be the responsibilities of students provides plenty of room for errors, ingenuity, mistake making, and graceful recovery. Ideally, I'd like to think that a merger would allow the student leaders to actually do much more, rather than much less, by giving them the resources and time to run their projects instead of retreading on old ground and filing paperwork with the IRS, et cetera. If we give SEDS members and leaders greater tools, they will accomplish more and learn more in the process.

Regardless, though: my opinion isn't the one that really matters here. As we've all said from the beginning, any potential merger needs to be one that appeals equally to all sides; and it seems as though we don't have that from SEDS now. I am disappointed, I must admit, but I am of course fine with that and respect the opinions and especially the amount of thought that went into them.

At this point, it probably makes most sense (barring a reversal from SEDS) to discontinue talks of a SGAC/SGF/SEDS merger, and instead concentrate on cleaning house within SEDS and between SGAC and SGF. Those are both significant projects in and of themselves, so perhaps we can move faster by tackling those first, then reconvening these discussions if deemed appropriate. Given that goal, I think that Josh laid out a reasonable and prudent plan of action. Let's move it forward.

Different Viewpoint (by Pradeep Nair)

I don't know whether I'm justified in joining this discussion or not. I'm a relatively new member of SEDS at its Mumbai chapter in India. I'm also a member of the newly created SEDS-Earth.

Many organisations have been created and many more have dissolved into oblivion after their creation. SEDS has survived for 25 years and for that it deserves credit. As an outsider viewing through the websites of both SEDS and Space Generation, I get the feeling that both are in a state of disorder and both are trying to revive themselves as organisations. They both are individually not doing well. Hence, we can't tell for certain how they would behave together.

The chemistry between the members of both these organisations are great and hence it is believed that both will work well together. I think that both organisations should first solve their problems, expand membership, prepare a database of SEDS and SGC members and then go to the negotiating table and sort out the issues.

Personally, thus, I would say go ahead with the plan but exercise caution.