Hi Kelvin, Thanks for the feedback. You and Harish have both given me some interesting ideas. Perhaps we are not yet done with the constitution debate...
I'd complain about another weekend spent in front of the PC, but who am I fooling? That's where I'd be anyway! (8-> Cheers CDR On Fri, 2009-03-20 at 08:41 +0800, Kelvin Quee wrote: > Hi David, > > > Fantastic stuff there and thanks for doing this. I have some > experience in running, starting and reviving non-profits. In > particular, there was a non-profit I was involved in and we had a > consitution that was designed decades ago and we found it extremely > hard to work with. The EC was too big and had too many positions. > > > Are you confident of filling up all 11 positions for the EC? My > 20cents is to keep the required committee as small as possible so that > the EC finds it fast and nimble to make decisions. It also lessens the > burden to the President from having to find another 8 interested > people. > > > For a small society, Asst.Secretary/Treasurer/President positions, in > my opinion, are unnecessary. They both "dilute" the value of the > Sec/Treas. People also tend to split work into unnecessarily small > pieces just to "create" work for the Asst. > > > These positions can be created in the future when needed. > > > I also find your quorum number too big. A more comfortable figure, in > my opinion, is 3. > > > I am being a little brutal and overly practical here. My view is that > even if you are absolutely confident of filling up the EC for the next > 3 years, the constitution is design to last for decades and we need to > "futureproof" it. It shouldn't be a liability to future ECs. > > > Yes, future ECs can change the constitution but the process is long. > An EC has to fulfill the current constitution *first* before it can > change its own constitution document. > > > David, what do you think? > > Kelvin Quee > +65 9177 3635 > > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 8:07 AM, C David Rigby > <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 2009-03-20 at 01:34 +0800, Zhi Xiong wrote: > > > Oh, okay. Sorry for the noise =P > > > > Cheers, > > Zhi Xiong > > > No worries & thanks for the feedback. I should have accepted > the changes > in the original Writer doc before posting. Thanks for pointing > out the > mistake. > > Regards > CDR > > > > _______________________________________________ > Slugnet mailing list > [email protected] > http://wiki.lugs.org.sg/LugsMailingListFaq > http://www.lugs.org.sg/mailman/listinfo/slugnet > > > _______________________________________________ Slugnet mailing list [email protected] http://wiki.lugs.org.sg/LugsMailingListFaq http://www.lugs.org.sg/mailman/listinfo/slugnet
