Hi, On 4/09/2013 4:54 PM, Lev Lafayette wrote: > b. The idea of following SLUG as a subcommittee of LA was first raised as > a discussion item 2009 (I think), and raised on committee in May 2013.
Okay,w well, there doesn't seem to be any excuse for not involving the members much sooner then does it? Instead of springing this on the members in the last hour, so to speak. > c. When raised in committee this year there was a general sense of caution > and a request to investigate the main issues (status of sponsors and > mailing lists, benefits). Obviously this is a more emotive topic and the "lip service" to the changes simply wasn't enough. Sounds to me that the committee is pissed that this didn't get up. > Please follow-ups to luv-talk, I think we've beaten this horse to death a > couple times over on luv-main. My view is that this topic deserves to be finalized right here, why should it be relegated to luv-talk where the topic never entered and where it could be buried because the committee doesn't want to resolve this fully? You asked a question, the don't seem to have liked the result, now it is the member's fault? Now, with the 2975 LA members, I wonder how many are LUV members; I also wonder what /value/ these numbers give to the argument; is LUV /worth/ approx. 1/3 of LA in terms of representation? If so, should LUV be relegated to just a sub-committee? I think not. As I've said before, I want both organizations to continue strongly, working together for common goals, but to remain independent of each other from a governance perspective. Attacking Daniel for having an opinion doesn't sit well with me either. Daniel should be applauded for taking a stand; in fact, everyone whom considered the motion with such vigour should be applauded especially given for most, this was a total surprise and a last hour "effort" ... it certainly looks like the outcome doesn't suit the committee; but it may well suit the membership's view. It was only on the 20th August ... when most members first got a message about this possible and quite significant change to LUV. It seems far more significant than the committee seems to believe. That is just 2 weeks for the membership to have discussions and make consideration; this is simply not long enough to deal with all the issues that were raised and then the committee expects a significant organization changing outcome! It seems to me that this wasn't thought through nearly enough before the proposal was brought forward and all this in the last hour for most members? I want LUV, LA and MLUG to all exist going forward, with no mergers of any kind that may limit members from having more choice and more avenues to be involved as each member sees fit. Swallowing up smaller organizations into one larger organization is not something that I would ever strive for and would likely never support. Cheers A. _______________________________________________ luv-main mailing list [email protected] http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main
