not signed   The widely used and agreed format is that for any organization listing particularly notable alumni members ect in the article is OK however simply listing people for the sake of listing them dosent add any meaningful content to the article as unless the person is notable then why would anyone else care about it  Wikipedia is not a directly for simply listing information  Notable is quite universally agreed to mean that the individual is important enough to have their own entry in Wikipedia  So if the person isnt important enough to independently warrant their own biographical page then its simply irrelevent to list their name in the article as having once been associated with an organization    In regards to the above comment attempting to establish notability Being mentioned in a local student run newspaper hardly counts in its own right as credible evidence for establishing that someone is notable enough for the rest of the world to know or even care who they are  There is some precedent for establishing a chronological list catagory separate from the article itself for long established offices or other leadership positions when that list would contain a number of notable indivduals see above with links to their biograpical articiles  In such cases there isnt much harm in filling in the list with nonnotable individuals for the sake of continuity  However in this case as this is still a very new organization and none of the names are yet notable it dosent really make much sense nor does it add any meaningful content  Perhaps is  years when potentially some former Berry leaders have gone on to notable careers such a list would be justified but at the moment it would essentially just consitute pointless self promotion citing the above previous concerns that this article appears to have been mostly written by those directly associated with the topic of the article  R