mike ledoux wrote:
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 08:44:59AM -0400, Paul Lussier wrote:
Yes, but we don't have a good way of ensuring only one person gets a
vote. Actually, I think this was discussed on the general mailing some
time ago - I just can't find it.
How about:
If you want to
Bruce Dawson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I wonder if those people are on the -org list? (Or have their eyes
glassed over with yet another of the incorporation go-rounds) ;-)
I'm a lot behind in my non-discuss list reading, but my this was my
very first upon seeing Ted's initial post :)
I'm not
Bill Sconce [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 18:33:04 -0400
Jon maddog Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
we did not keep minutes at the time.
Ar, ar, ar. :)
Bill, Talk like a pirate day is officially on the 19th of September.
You're either way late or way early ;)w
--
http://wiki.gnhlug.org/twiki2/bin/view/Www/FirstAnnouncement
On Apr 25, 2006, at 9:16 AM, Paul Lussier wrote:
When exactly did GNHLUG form ? I know I've been involved since
sometime in 1994 or early 1995 (Good Night! Has it *really* been
*that* long?!!?) But I was always under the impression
Bruce Dawson wrote:
BTW: Back in the mid-to-late-90's I was a member of a UG that had a
vendor try to take over by doing exactly this (they wanted to get rid
of the non-commercialization policy). However, people got suspicious
when about 30 names showed up one day from the same domain. A more
Heather Brodeur wrote:
Bruce Dawson wrote:
BTW: Back in the mid-to-late-90's I was a member of a UG that had a
vendor try to take over by doing exactly this (they wanted to get rid
of the non-commercialization policy). However, people got suspicious
when about 30 names showed up one day from
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 18:33:04 -0400
Jon maddog Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
we did not keep minutes at the time.
Ar, ar, ar. :)
___
gnhlug-org mailing list
gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org
I am very sorry to hear that you have lost an eye and leg.
Your dry cleaning bills must be high too given the mess that
parrot must make.
Aye, 'twas a real mess, for as long as the parrot lasted.
(A snake got 'im.)
Too bad, I was going to use him in an upcoming BeachHead column in the
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 13:30:22 -0400
Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe it's just resting? They stun easily...
I didn't know Bill had one of the rare and beautiful Norwegian
Blue parrots! I wonder why he has been hiding him from us?
Would be a real attention grabber at Hoss
On Apr 18, 2006, at 5:00 PM, Jon maddog Hall wrote:
I would not try to keep it at an odd number unless you either
finalize the
number of chapters (I think this would be unwise) or add an at
large member
every time you add a chapter (also unwise).
Chapters come and go, it's true. I would
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 08:11:51 -0400
Ted Roche [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ed, do you have wisdom to add?
Yes, I'd like to learn more if anyone has more insights.
I'm jammed up right now and will be a few days before I can
digest what everyone is saying and get back on the 501(c) (3/6)
issues.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
It is for that reason I believe Ben's thought of more than one organization
has some merit
I hate to split it up into two organizations. It is hard enough to get people's
time and energy for *ONE* organization.
or at least it leads us to think about some important
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 09:24:53 -0400
Jon maddog Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hate to split it up into two organizations. It is hard
enough to get people's
time and energy for *ONE* organization.
I share your opinion on this.
Ed Lawson
___
On 4/19/06, Jon maddog Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is for that reason I believe Ben's thought of more than one organization
has some merit
I hate to split it up into two organizations. It is hard enough to get
people's
time and energy for *ONE* organization.
While I am advocating
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
While I am advocating two legal entities, it is for legal and
administrative convenience. I was more-or-less thinking that the
administrative functions of one could mostly be a mirror of the other, and
that it would be kept mostly transparent to any volunteers.
On Apr 19, 2006, at 8:52 AM, Jon maddog Hall wrote:
So what happens if no one from a small and remote chapter WANTS to
run? Are you going to force them to run? Hog tie them and whip
them until
they agree to run? You WILL have representation, Ted shouts. :-)
Excellent point. I'm warming
There's too much on this whole list to quote from. It's a great sign for the amount of passion in this!My thoughts on this may be over simplistic, but it's possible to use an existing structure and formalize it for the purpose of chartering and laying the ground work:
Currently, there are a number
Jon maddog Hall wrote:
I think you want to have as representatives the people who really want to do
the work and make the group go. They will typically be the ones that (given
a call to run) will respond, and probably (from their own participation
on the lists, list of projects where they
Bruce Dawson wrote:
Ted Roche wrote:
I'm not sure we have an easy way to distinguish email addresses.
Yes, but we don't have a good way of ensuring only one person gets a
vote. Actually, I think this was discussed on the general mailing some
time ago - I just can't find it.
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 05:10:36PM -0400, Heather Brodeur wrote:
Bruce Dawson wrote:
Ted Roche wrote:
I'm not sure we have an easy way to distinguish email addresses.
Yes, but we don't have a good way of ensuring only one person gets a
vote. Actually, I think this was discussed on the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Perhaps I'm being a bit over simplistic, but shouldn't we just require
registration to vote?
I am starting up Linux International again, and even though I have a free
basic membership, the people will have to register to join. After all, this
is not much different
Ted,
well, maybe the second meeting. in 1994.
Please don't exaggerate. :-)
Organization was definitely not discussed until after the third meeting,
at least. I was at the first meeting. And I was at the second meeting when the
person who organized the first meeting said they could not do it
Heather Brodeur wrote:
Bruce Dawson wrote:
Ted Roche wrote:
I'm not sure we have an easy way to distinguish email addresses.
Yes, but we don't have a good way of ensuring only one person gets a
vote. Actually, I think this was discussed on the general mailing some
time ago - I just can't find
Several attendees at past quarterly activists meetings have expressed
interest in reviving this topic. And maddog's recent postings on the
Gould Academy get-together also point to the advantages of having a
non-profit structure.
GNHLUG is in a indefinite position, as it has no legal
Excellent [re-]start Ted. Thanks for remembering this!
Ted Roche wrote:
...
I have a few ideas about how I'd like to structure the organization.
This is just one guy's opinion and I'd welcome constructive criticism.
The main things I am trying to build in here are: representation,
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 13:41:00 -0400
Bruce Dawson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Excellent [re-]start Ted. Thanks for remembering this!
Indeed. Of course the age old problem still exists. Since
everyone wants to be as egalitarian as our roots require (and I
essentially agree with this view),
Ted Roche wrote:
On Apr 18, 2006, at 2:17 PM, Ed Lawson wrote:
Sounds like a good topic to merge with a quarterly summer meeting with
a key-signing party and a summer cookout, eh?
Eh? (My ears perk up.) I guess I need to firm up my summer schedule.
Speaking of cat herding... Sigh.
--Bruce
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 15:40:12 -0400
Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we're going to go before
anyone and say we represent GNHLUG, we have to make sure we
actually
*DO* represent GNHLUG. That means everyone has to agree with
everything we're pushing (more or less).
Not in response to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
1. All chapters have a representative in the executive council. (What's a
chapter? We'll let the governing body decide, perhaps by drafting
regulations, perhaps by vote on a case-by-case basis.)
2. Two or more at large members can serve, bringing the total count
On 4/18/06, Ed Lawson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not in response to the merits of what Ben has suggested, but only
to point out that one often under appreciated and misunderstood
feature of a democracy is that the majority rules.
Indeed, and not just
On 4/18/06, Jon maddog Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As to Ben's input ...
I think that general guidelines of We believe in Free and Open Source
Software and its use is a pretty general idea and leaves lots of room
open for advocacy.
General ideas tend to get bogged down when the details
On Apr 18, 2006, at 2:52 PM, Bruce Dawson wrote:
Ah ha! You're suggesting a Senate to go with the Representatives!
Senates *are* good balances to the sometimes mob rule of
representative government, but maybe we could have two forms of
representative - one representing the constituents and one
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I don't understand. I thought one of the reasons for seeking (c)(3) status
was so that contributions would be tax-deductible. ??
Sure, *if* you can get 501(c)3 status. What I am telling you is that several
tax-lawyers I know are telling me that 501(c)3 status is
Ted Roche wrote:
On Apr 18, 2006, at 2:52 PM, Bruce Dawson wrote:
Ah ha! You're suggesting a Senate to go with the Representatives!
Senates *are* good balances to the sometimes mob rule of
representative government, but maybe we could have two forms of
representative - one representing the
On Apr 18, 2006, at 3:40 PM, Ben Scott wrote:
I believe that, when it comes to advocacy, there should be legal
entity separate from GNHLUG.
To my mind, GNHLUG is an organization that provides an infrastructure
for members to meet, confer, network and create projects. Advocacy
for or
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 14:12:41 -0400
Ted Roche [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmmm... wonder if anyone on this list is familiar with maintaining
voter lists.
Oh oh.
___
gnhlug-org mailing list
gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org
Well, I sat out the two iterations on this topic, at least as far as the
following idea is concerned. It was a problem of personalities in the past,
but perhaps the people in question are no longer (deeply) involved. If you
know about *current* problems and don't want to publicize them, please at
37 matches
Mail list logo
