On Sunday 01 March 2009 01:01:58 Alex Hudson wrote: > John, > > ...my failure to respond to your questions in a formal matter is > pretty simple: you seem to want to take my word as gospel, when all am I > doing is informing you to the best of my knowledge. If you want to hold > me to what I say, then I'm afraid I'm going to take time to check what I > say. > I indeed expect any reply you make to me, and this list, to be both truthful and accurate. If you did not intend to respond in a formal manner to my questions then you should not have offered to do so.
I am not undertaking this exercise to win friends and influence people, I am trying to discover what went wrong with the management of the affairs of the AFFS, and arrive at a solution that is agreeable to the remaining paid up members. If those who were members wish to rejoin the resulting body, if there is one, then that is a bonus, I have to inform you that I have already had enquires from both former members and those who wish to take up a new membership. When this matter is settled I expect to withdraw into the background and leave it, (the AFFS) to be run by others. > I have no problem with anything you've asked. I also have no problem in > trying to help you achieve your stated aims. I wish you would treat me > less as an adversary to be overcome and more as someone who is trying to > help, as I have stated on numerous occasions to you. > In your post of, (Date: Fri Feb 27 09:50:10 2009), you wrote, > > ...the problem has been simply lack of manpower I think... > Of course the problem has been "simply lack of manpower", the reason that the AFFS now finds itself in this position is a result of a specific action taken, that of EXPELLING THE HUGE MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS, in your post, (Date: Fri Feb 27 10:25:15 2009), you wrote, > > Well, not really - we stopped taking membership subscriptions a while > ago. The problem with people having standing orders / direct debits was > that we were unable to stop them... > All those who now find themselves in the position of no longer being members, (and that is a problem that I will be taking steps to address), were in effect, by the action of returning their subscriptions, deprived of their membership, in short expelled! They do not seem to have been given a reason for their expulsion, or if I remember the relevant passage of the rules correctly, a hearing at which to put their case against expulsion, their memberships were simply terminated! Question, whose decision was it to deprive members of their membership by returning their subscriptions? I will expect this specific question answered by the same time next week. -- John Seago GNU/Linux Registered User No. #219566 http://counter.li.org/ _______________________________________________ Fsfe-uk mailing list Fsfe-uk@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk
