Thanks Nick. Here here!
On Fri, 2003-01-31 at 14:12, Nick Rout wrote: > 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/ > > > > > > -- Robert Fisher http://www.fisherfamily.orcon.net.nz
