Uhm. I think a lot of people are getting a little too worked up here.
SDMUG is going to leave. SDCS had general elections in April's SDMUG meeting (you know, when Lan and Carl were put on the board.) We should attend the next SDCS board meeting at a minimum to: 1) observe how the notice of dissolution of SDMUG is handled 2) request that a board member make a motion to schedule special elections for June in order to replace SDMUG members on the SDCS board to begin the transition to an SDMUG-free SDCS 3) inform the SDCS board that there are now people interested in taking the seats which are available due to departing SDMUG members. Once we have a date for the special elections, which SHOULD NOT include SDMUG if the request to disolve the SIG is accepted, THEN we can rally the other SIGs to fill SDCS board seats. At this point, I'm perfectly willing to go for SDCS President. Personally, I am dissatisfied that SDMUG made the decision to leave _after_ the last general elections. Elections which were, IMHO, poorly publicised (I honestly didn't know they were the SDCS _General_ Elections; I thought they were just to fill the vacant seats.) A lot of this mess could have been handily avoided if SDMUG had decided this prior to the elections. Gregory On Tuesday 10 May 2005 04:03 pm, Lan Barnes wrote: > John Alvarado and I just talked land line. I think it's important to get > input from all the remaining SIGs (and even ask under the hood) before > the next board meeting. > > Do others agree? How can we do that? > > -- > Lan Barnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Linux Guy, SCM Specialist 858-354-0616 -- Gregory K. Ruiz-Ade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP Key ID: EAF4844B keyserver: pgpkeys.mit.edu
pgpCBqlDkzeJs.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-steer
