On Monday 09 May 2005 04:34 pm, Lan Barnes wrote: > Now I'm just trying to make sure I'm on the same page here, but our goal > is to make it possible for them to leave with as little friction as > possible, right? I mean, they're gonna go, and there will be a new SDCS > no matter what, so we should all just try to get through the birthing > process (making sure it's all legal and kosher), right?
Well, I thought that was the point. I mean, at the last SDCS board meeting, all the SDMUG people present were bitching about how they really weren't so keen on pulling double-duty for both the SDMUG board and the SDCS board. I don't see why they'd have a problem with other SDCS members stepping up and offering to replace them in the next SDCS general elections (from which, I firmly believe, SDMUG should be excluded.*) > I hope hope hope everyone says yes. Me too. * Why? Well, the SDMUG SIG has essentially given KPLUG the ol' heave-ho by voting to succeed from SDCS and form their own corporation as SDMUG. Having decided they no longer wish to have any part in SDCS, I feel they no longer have the right to decide in SDCS matters (excluding standing board members, since, well, they're board members.) Hence, my opinion that the non-SDCS board members of SDMUG should not be allowed to vote in any forthcoming SDCS elections. By the same token, SDCS board members _should_ be allowed to vote in SDCS board elections, as they are still interested parties in SDCS until such time as they are relieved of or resigned from their SDCS duties. Did that make sense? Gregory -- Gregory K. Ruiz-Ade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP Key ID: EAF4844B keyserver: pgpkeys.mit.edu
pgpHtpdZoNBHl.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-steer
