-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
~As we discussed at our last -org meeting, I'll announce it as the
~first new all-hands GNHLUG "Quarterly Meeting".
Good idea. Please post it to the -announce list ASAP!
~ I assume people will
~want to arrange car pools and such. Sh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Star wrote:
| Speaking as someone who's essentially a list-lurker, and only
| recently has been able devote the necessary mind share to even show
| up at a local meeting and read through the mail-lists, it is
| pretty obvious that the "group" as a w
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bruce Dawson wrote:
| Ted Roche wrote:
|
| | I suspected that the regular email notices of changes to the
| TWiki | were not being sent out, so I ssh'd to poke around. | |
| Running the mailnotify script manually showed a permissions problem
| | with
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ted Roche wrote:
| I suspected that the regular email notices of changes to the TWiki
| were not being sent out, so I ssh'd to poke around.
|
| Running the mailnotify script manually showed a permissions problem
| with the Organizational web, but I l
I suspected that the regular email notices of changes to the TWiki
were not being sent out, so I ssh'd to poke around.
Running the mailnotify script manually showed a permissions problem
with the Organizational web, but I lack sufficient permissions to
change it. Could someone with a bit mo
Speaking as someone who's essentially a list-lurker, and only recently
has been able devote the necessary mind share to even show up at a
local meeting and read through the mail-lists, it is pretty obvious
that the "group" as a whole does, in fact, have a central cadre of
volunteers that act as the
On Oct 12, 2005, at 03:26, Jon maddog Hall wrote:
No, I don't have to take ownership of the title 'power-mad despot'. I
take
offense that someone suggests such a concept, whether under the guise
of
"Devil's Advocate" or not.
I guess we have different understandings of what "Devil's Advocate
> > You'd have to take ownership of the title 'power-mad despot' to take
> > offense
> > at that. My point was we don't have any. Or are you volunteering? ;)
>
> No, I don't have to take ownership of the title 'power-mad despot'. I take
> offense that someone suggests such a concept, whether
One last "to be clear" message here, and I'll let the discussion
continue onwards:
The discussion appears to have settled on the -org list, and not the -
discuss list. All are welcome to join that list. Sign up at:
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org
Also, I would expect the
On Oct 12, 2005, at 3:52 AM, Jon maddog Hall wrote:
If I have to invoke the time-honored traditional "ender of all stupid
and tired thread" messages on this thread, I will.
Agreed. It was a marvelous falling-backwards-onto-the-stage pratfall.
Let's leave it be and move on.
Ted Roche
Ted Ro
Ladies and Gentlemen,
[For background, Ed Lawson wrote an initial draft of bylaws that are up on
the Wiki, and which I read and responded to. Here is Ed's input to that,
and my response below. Sooner or later all the emails should come into sync
on -org. - md]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Just for
[My apologies to some who have received this before. I am sending it out to the
-org list in honoring more "full disclosure". - md]
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The Bylaws in the Wiki are a fine start, but I do have some comments on them.
In Article II of the Bylaws it deals with "membership".
It sta
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I suggest that we all stop talking about who did what and for what reasons
and now concentrate on the task at hand.
If you believe that the organization would be better served as an incorporated
body, then inspect the charter and bylaws as pointed to by Ted and make
construc
On 10/12/05, Jon maddog Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A very nice message. Thanks for sending it out.
I agree.
Sorry for the "Me Too" message, but given recent list traffic, I
wanted to personally acknowledge Ted's hard work in this area, and
reiterate that I actually support these effor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> You'd have to take ownership of the title 'power-mad despot' to take offense
> at that. My point was we don't have any. Or are you volunteering? ;)
No, I don't have to take ownership of the title 'power-mad despot'. I take
offense that someone suggests such a concep
On 10/12/05, Bill McGonigle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Oct 12, 2005, at 02:47, Jon maddog Hall wrote:
>
> >> If people did send along
> >> their desires to remain unorganized it was repressed by our power-mad
> >> despots.
> >
> > I will take offense at that statement for the rest of the gro
On 10/12/05, Ted Roche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There was no effort to hide anything. On the contrary.
Again: I am not accusing anyone of hiding anything.
>> Now, I can only speak for myself, but I don't recall any
>> announcements regarding incorporation or adoption of bylaws at
>> recen
On Oct 12, 2005, at 02:47, Jon maddog Hall wrote:
If people did send along
their desires to remain unorganized it was repressed by our power-mad
despots.
I will take offense at that statement for the rest of the group.
You'd have to take ownership of the title 'power-mad despot' to take
o
On Oct 11, 2005, at 11:50 PM, Benjamin Scott wrote:
Suggestion #1: Electronic discussions involving organizational
matters should always happen on the -org list. No ifs, ands, or
buts. Whether it is a motion to incorporate, an idea for a
project, a status report, or a misspelling t
Bill,
> Devil's Advocate:
> Even if 51% of the GNHLUG-discuss list said, "gee, I'd rather we didn't
> incorporate," we would anyway.
I think that the damage that would be done to the GNHLUG group if that happened
would be very greatand it would be a shame. Likewise I think that going
On 10/12/05, Kevin D. Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyways, can somebody please just send an email to the list detailing
> what the issue is? All I've gotten so far is a vague notion of
> "bylaws".
Thanks for making my point for me, Kevin. :-)
My initial reaction, when I was brought i
On Oct 11, 2005, at 23:50, Benjamin Scott wrote:
So before we submit a set of bylaws for approval, I think we should
first poll *EVERYONE* for their feelings on this. I realize it is
hard to have a vote when we don't have a formal existence, but we can
do more then what we have.
Devil's
On 10/12/05, Kevin D. Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyways, can somebody please just send an email to the list detailing
> what the issue is? All I've gotten so far is a vague notion of
> "bylaws".
I will attempt to summarize the discussion so far. I will try to be
objective, but in the
Ted,
A very nice message. Thanks for sending it out.
md
--
Jon "maddog" Hall
Executive Director Linux International(R)
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 80 Amherst St.
Voice: +1.603.672.4557 Amherst, N.H. 03031-3032 U.S.A.
WWW: http://www.li.org
Board Member: Uniforum Associati
At the recent Summer Summit, interested activists discussed many
possible futures for GNHLUG.
See: http://wiki.gnhlug.org/twiki2/bin/view/Organizational/
SummerSummit2005Notes
We agreed that one of the most important guiding principles is that
we should continue to make GNHLUG a welcoming
I sent an email to a few trusted friends, to ask some advice on how
to present the question on incorporating as a non-profit to the
group. That email got out of hand, spread to too many people, and
splattered onto the list. Obviously, I've got to reconsider my methods.
On Oct 12, 2005, at 2
Benjamin Scott writes:
>In other words, if the concern is that some might accuse us of
>being a cabal, we should make every effort to make everyone aware
>of what is going on at every step of the process.
That's no way to run a cabal! Gheesh.
Anyways, can somebody please just send
27 matches
Mail list logo
