On 5/9/05, Gregory K. Ruiz-Ade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
----------------------------------- I think you meant SDCS not KPLUG
------------------------------------ Maybe not
> 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?
Yes, I agree.
carl
--
carl lowenstein marine physical lab u.c. san diego
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-steer
