Hello,
Not quite. Actually, I've been very public in speaking to people at the
LUGs about it - and, for that matter, to anyone that could listen,
including a number of other nonprofits in New Hampshire. The reaction
has been very positive, both from GNHLUG members and others. If I've
been keeping secrets, I've been doing a terrible job.
Take it easy,
--
David Berube
Chairman, GNHLUG
http://gnhlug.org
603.485.9622
Benjamin Scott wrote:
[My apologies if you receive this twice. My mailer burped on the
first attempt and I'm not sure if it went through or not.]
*** NOTE: I've added the -org list to the recipients. ***
My primary concern with all of this is that it has occurred largely
in private. Sure, we haven't tried to exclude anyone who wanted to
participate, but we haven't exactly tried to broadcast our doings,
either.
Case in point: This discussion. The major point of concern appears
to be that we don't want "the membership" to see us as an elite inner
circle trying to take control. Yet this discussion is happening via
private email. Not on any list. Not on any website.
We're doing exactly what we're afraid others will think we will do.
What has happened (by accident, really) is that about a dozen
people have gotten together and said, in effect, "We should make
GNHLUG more official." I include myself in this group. Most of us met
in person at Bruce Dawson's place in August of 2005. Some discussions
have continued "offline" since then. We are now proposing submitting
a list of bylaws to "the membership" for "approval".
Now, put yourself in Joe User's shoes. Joe has been lurking on the
discuss list, maybe even posting on occasion. Joe drops by one of the
local meetings occasionally, too. But Joe doesn't really care much
about "being a part of it all", so has ignored all the noise about the
-org list and such. Now we come along and say, "Okay, everyone,
here's the new Constitution, sign here, please." What's Joe gonna
think? I wouldn't blame Joe for seeing this as a "power grab" and us
as "the cabal".
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.
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 that needs correcting, it should be on
the list. If you want to sent "To" one person and "Cc" the list,
that's fine, but include everyone. Ideally, *all* such discussions
would be repeated to the -org list, but there are technical and
resource issues that make that a lot harder. But if we're already
tossing electrons around, the cost to do it on the list is near-zero.
Suggestion #2: Tell everyone what we're doing. Briefly explain the
rationale ("Why are we doing this?") and what it would entail (bylaws,
officers, any fees, etc.). Be sure to explain the power structure.
Give a pointer to our website for those who want details. And take a
vote on whether people are "in favor", "opposed", "indifferent", or
"unsure". Do this both at all the local meatspace meetings, at the
quarterly/state-wide/big meeting, *AND* on the discuss list. (Maybe
we can setup a web-based voting form for that.) This will tell us
what people actually want. And that's what this is all about, right?
Objections? Suggestions? Comments? Agreement? Condemnation?
For the record: (1) Personally, I'm actually in favor of formal
incorporation, provided we "do it right". (2) I don't think anyone
here is actually trying to "grab power", but I am very worried that
others might think that.
-- Ben "Of the people, by the people, for the people" Scott
--
David Berube
Berube Consulting
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(603)-485-9622
http://www.berubeconsulting.com/
_______________________________________________
gnhlug-org mailing list
gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org