I agree that the IAP is a different kind of organization than the AAW, and I like it for that. I'm really not trying to emulate just an AAW club that turns smaller things, but rather branching out into all kinds of areas like casting, kitless pens, and the like. I think no matter what the club is structured to be, that's the route the club will end up going.
What we're facing in Richmond is that we're having meetings at the same location, using the same room, same tools, and will have many of the same members even, as the AAW club. The owner of the Woodcraft where we'll be holding the meeting is accomodating us equally as the AAW club. To reject any kind of affiliation with the AAW on principle will be hard for us to do without a disctint and specific differentiation, especially since the AAW is a good club and many members will undoubtedly enjoy both clubs. Without any sort of 'structure' with the IAP local chapters, our Richmond pen club will be making a statement by not being affiliated with the AAW, yet we will essentially be on our own in how we operate the club.
In the Richmond AAW chapter, they are also creating a 'subchapter' for segmented turning, which will be under the umbrella of the AAW but be a different and independent club of the main AAW club. This 'subchapter' status would actually suit a pen club quite well, and was suggested to me by another AAW board member. The appeal of insurance, members who have experience operating the AAW club, and support from the main AAW club are going to be very difficult to turn away for out Richmond IAP chapter as the IAP local chapters are currently formed.
I see a couple of different options here, in terms of how to address this issue for all local IAP clubs (I'm sure there are others, but this is just what I see):
1) Keep the clubs the way they are, which means each locality is going to have to use its own devices to run the club. This will mean that every local club will have the flexibility to follow whatever interests the individuals have in that locality. The individuals will be responsible with creating ideas for activities and sharing with other local clubs with little centralized planning from the IAP founders.
2) Formalize the IAP in a fashion similar to the AAW, delegate club guidelines and suggest activities to the local chapters from a centralized governing body. This would force local clubs to pay dues and run meetings with officers similar to AAW clubs, but there would be more organization and benefits like insurance for local clubs operating at 3rd party locations (like Woodcraft) and national or regional pen turning symposiums.
3) Create an alliance with the AAW for the purpose of forming local pen club chapters, working under the national AAW for insurance and symposiums, but having a focus strictly on the many facents of pen turning. Perhaps contact the national AAW and look to join forces in order to reach out to pen turners on a local level, especially those that may not be familiar with the IAP forum.
I'm really not trying to rock everybody's world here, but this is an issue for us starting an IAP chapter in Richmond, as I'm sure it might be for other localities. I love the format and freedom of the IAP forum and I would really love to replicate that at the local level, but there are logistical things to work through when you're talking about people driving far and meeting at a location with sharp tools and objects spinning thousands of times a minute 10 feet from their faces. I'm only trying to raise the issues before someone calls their lawyer on the club! I can't imagine what would happen if a local chapter had someone get hurt and their affiliation with the IAP comprimised the forum and the craft of pen turning.