For heavens sake John, if you read the list properly you would know that the people on this list (ie "CLUG" to the extent that it exists) don't feel the need for anything more formal than we now have. What unfulfilled need are you trying to address, apart from a (perceived) need for structure?
Theres a couple of old sayings that seem apt here: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" "keep it simple stupid (KISS)" Now if you think something needs to be done that isn't being done, be specific about it. Tell us simply and in words of one syllable what it is you want! More newbie talks? More community involvement? more installfests? more workshops? Say it, it may get done, but remember you will probably be asked to help (and I note you didn't stand for the committee yourself :-) Of course if you want to form another group with different aims and structure, go ahead! Its a free world. Please don't call it the Canterbury Linux Users Group, it'll just confuse people. However no doubt there will still be a fluid group of people who simply enjoy getting together once a month or so to impart their knowledge for mutual benefit and to socialise with like minds. In relation to this paragraph: > "That the CLUG Executive Committee report back to the CLUG no later > than September 30 2003, on suggested administrative rules for the > CLUG which will cover such things as the purpose, the role of the > Executive Committee, power to form sub committees, control of CLUG > assets and a procedure for winding up the CLUG is that is required at > some future date." That to me, seems to be a waste of time - "lets form a committee to formulate rules about how the committee shall be run". And there are no assets, except for a relativelty modest amount of cash (raised from door entries and maybe some small profit (loss?) on the installfest). Our one true asset is the knowledge of the people who participate. No committee is going to ever control that, particularly in the free (speech) world of linux/open source. Man I'm spending my 2 cent pieces fast! On Fri, 31 Jan 2003 13:52:13 +1300 John S Veitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello Everyone > > It's clear that there is no CLUG, but many people before me have > expressed surprise at that and like me have looked to improve the > function of the local Linux community by doing some very obvious > things. > > Nick Elder : > "I MOVE THAT THE CLUG MEETING THIS COMING WEDNESDAY BE A GENERAL > MEETING AND THAT AT THIS MEETING WE FORM AN EXECUTIVE !" > > Christopher Sawtell: > "I second that!" > > So at least two people assume that something exists that needs a > committee, and forgive my ignorance but I thought is was the CLUG. > > Never mind. There are some things the require formal process. > Creating the organisation called the CLUG is easy. Someone moves a > motion "that the CLUG be formed" and if that gets support it's done. > > There are a few details to tidy up, but since it's all common sense > stuff it should take about 10 minutes, not three hours. > > Something like this: > > "That the five man committee appointed on 29 January 2003 be > recognised as the Executive Committee of CLUG." > > "That the Executive Committee of the CLUG invite into it's > membership as non-voting members as many other people as it needs to > run the CLUG effectively." > > "That the Executive Committee of the CLUG appoint one of their number > to be a Chairman" > > "That the other four members of the Executive Committee consider how > they might best contribute to the development of the CLUG, and agree > among themselves to adopt appropriate roles and responsibilities." > > "That the CLUG Executive Committee report back to the CLUG no later > than September 30 2003, on suggested administrative rules for the > CLUG which will cover such things as the purpose, the role of the > Executive Committee, power to form sub committees, control of CLUG > assets and a procedure for winding up the CLUG is that is required at > some future date." > > > There should be nothing controversial in the above suggestion. All > the "power" of the Executive Committee is in the hands of the five > people already appointed who group members already know, respect and > trust. Since we are doing some new things it might be beneficial to > use "trust" for a while, while we develop a few rules. > > I'm personally against establishing an Incorporated Society, that's > unnecessary unless we have assets, loans, and/or substantial > property. I would also caution you against adopting the sort of > rules law firms typically offer organisations. Those rules are > designed to protect ownership, and to avoid legal battles (or cause > legal battles) over things like membership rights. > > Good rules give members power. Good rules ensure that the people > elected by the members have defined roles. Good rules ensure that > nobody remains in the same executive position year on year. Good > rules require the executive to train ordinary members to be executive > members. Executive members are themselves preparing to be Chair or > President of Chief Penguin or whatever you call the role of the > senior executive member. (There needs to be rules about money and > assets too, but that's not the key thing.) Good rules are used every > time the Executive Committee or the organisation as a whole does > something. (Sadly the sort of rules most of you know are thrown in a > draw after they come back from the lawyer and are never referred to > again unless there's a serious money problem.) > > Once again none of those principles should be controversial. The aim > of the CLUG is primarily educational, and the organisation is > controlled by it's members. You don't have to join, but if you would > like to join I'm sure someone will make you welcome. > > Regards > John > > > > > > John S. Veitch > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Photo Available on WWW > http://www.ate.co.nz/johnsveitch.jpg > > Adapt to Experience > URL http://www.ate.co.nz/ > for Virus Protection http://www.ate.co.nz/trend/ > > > -- Nick Rout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
