Bill McGonigle wrote: > On Jul 14, 2008, at 09:13, Ben Scott wrote: > >> Keep in mind this is only for entities operating in the name of the >> Legal Entity GNHLUG. There's nothing keeping anyone from simply going >> out and getting stuff done on their own. > > Perhaps it's worth figuring out then whether a SIG/whatever ought to > be a subunit of GNHLUG or merely affiliated with it (in order to keep > everybody's heads as low as possible and process to a minimum).
Well, that's exactly what we're hoping to achieve, some simple guidance for SIGs that say that your structure can be part of GNHLUG if you follow the same strictures of being a non-profit educational charity in the sense of 501(c)(3) as GNHLUG is expected to be, and understand that the board or its designees can take on financial obligations on the part of GNHLUG. That might be it, right there. Sounds like you ought to come down to Manchester and offer to help us with this :) > For > instance, what benefit is there to having PySIG as a 'part' of GNHLUG > that wouldn't be otherwise satisfied under a lower regulatory > hurdle? Well, Janet's cookies might become deductible! :) Seriously, short of a group desiring to take on a major project, all of this is make-work and much ado about nothing. However, when that opportunity comes along, it will be too late to start the process. So, we are trying to lay the groundwork now, and minimize the hassles to everyone involved. > I understand the benefits of having GNHLUG being a > functional entity of the State of New Hampshire, but it might also be > possible to apply some UNIX-fu to keep the 'code' as small as > possible. There are surely merits to "Small Pieces Loosely Joined." But sometimes a simple static binding has an advantage, too. We want to consider the options. That's why the board meets. And to save wear and tear on the keyboards trying to type all of it! > There are certainly all kinds of models we could dream up > where GNHLUG co-sponsors events, or whatever label makes regulatory > sense. That's the basic application Arc was asking us to consider. For an Ubuntu SIG that will liaison with an Ubuntu LoCo, that might be the optimal solution. For a PySIG or a RubySIG, a tighter affiliation, hopefully without much hassle, might work, too. And all of these are subject to change and renegotiations. We just need to consider our options. Your thoughts and suggestions, as well as all others, are welcome in this discussion and at the meeting. Many hands make light work. -- Ted Roche Ted Roche & Associates, LLC http://www.tedroche.com _______________________________________________ gnhlug-org mailing list gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org/
