On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 19:38:55 +1300, Robert Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 18:25, Nick Rout wrote: > > > Or we just ignore Rik, vote for a committee and move on to the main > > course, which is linux support and encouragement. > > > > I would like to table a motion: > > "That the loose grouping of people known as the Canterbury Linux Users Group > remain as such with no rules other than sharing a common interest in using, > supporting and encouraging Linux and Open Source software and further, that > all decisions be made based on any apparent shared but not necessarily > unanimous reasoning." > > If few people share the sentiments of my motion then I withdraw it. > > If many of you share my sentiments then I also withdraw it. (LOL)
Shared. I have read the archive thread Nick refers to, and would like to state that I personally haven't attended a meeting in quite some time, but this is in no way due to the orgisational structure of "CLUG" (or lack thereof), or a reflection on the current committee. I simply don't get time, or don't get around to it (and thus end up mostly lurking on the list ;) . But I like it the way it is. Can I just ask one thing though? Please avoid use of the word "motion". It can tend to give people the wrong idea :) For that matter, I think "AGM" is a little misleading too. Some people take the term far more seriously than just a loose phrase for "meeting to organise stuff". I would quite like to come to this next meeting if I can. However, if it is going to be full of people moving motions to amend motions and taking minutes of said motions, I think I'll be in the "vote with my feet" camp :) As far as a change in structure goes, "if it ain't broken, don't fix it". Perhaps we could have a quick show of hands - who besides Rik thinks anything is broken at the moment? "CLUG" seems to be fine to me - the mailing list is still up, and still populated with nice friendly people discussing Linux. If some people from the mailing list arrange meetings in meatspace (for want of a better term, sorry :) and not as many people turn up as used to: (a) is this an indication of anything at all? (b) if those who do make it enjoy their evening, is it in any way less "successful" than a larger meeting? Cheers, Gareth
