On Mon, 26 Aug 2013, [email protected] wrote: > >On Sun, August 25, 2013 1:49 pm, Daniel Cross wrote: > >> Lev, you say that this will be discussed at the AGM, yet the rest of > >> your email (beginning "what will change") reads as though > >> disincorporation is a decided matter. > > > >"What will change" is always with the caveat of "if" the motion is passed. > >The question mark in the title was also meant to indicate the uncertain > >nature of the proposition. > > A comment on the above statements on this issue, now I have worked on the > committees of two volunteer orginisations and __DO__ apreciate what is > trying to be done to simplify matters, but on reading the whole series of > messages I must say I have same ___impression___ as Daniel, that is the > merger is being presented as a done deal and one simply cannot do this in a > democratic group such as this. On the whole I am not a bit surprised on the > groups reaction.
It really isn't being presented as a done deal. Lev doesn't seem to care what happens in this regard which is presumably why he chose the subject which was destined to cause controversy. Daniel Jitnah is opposed which is presumably why he started claiming that the future of the mailing list is "unresolved". There has never at any time been any doubt about the future of the mailing list. There has been a long history of adding lists for SIGs as needed and removing them if the demand isn't there, but luv-main has remained and will continue. The fundamental definition of LUV is that it's a volunteer organisation that supports users of Linux (and other free OSs) in Victoria. I attended the meeting where the name LUV was selected and was a LUV member before LUV was an incorporated body. Being an incorporated body was never fundamental to LUV, it was merely a necessity for various legal reasons before the existence of LA. LUV pre-dates LA, if LA had been around and offering free insurance when LUV first started there would never have been an incorporated body for LUV. > When presenting any information that may be headed for a hostile reception > it is wise to be carefull of the wording, rereading and correcting to make > sure it says what you wish it to see without giving a false impression. It > has taken me usually 2 to 3 __HOURS___ to formulate a 400 word post under > these conditions (an undisclosed news thread) and I am proud to say, I > never had a single post missinterprited. I don't think that the problem here is misunderstanding the messages. I think that the only thing we could have done better in this regard would be to make an itemised list of everything that LUV owns, receives, and does and for each item explain how it will either not change or improve. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/ _______________________________________________ luv-main mailing list [email protected] http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main
