I completely agree.
On Friday 31 Jan 2003 5:19 am, Robert Fisher wrote:
> Thanks Nick.
>
> Here here!
>
> On Fri, 2003-01-31 at 14:12, Nick Rout wrote:
> > For heavens sake John, if you read the list properly you would know that
> > the people on this list (ie "CLUG" to the extent that it exists) don't
> > feel the need for anything more formal than we now have. What
> > unfulfilled need are you trying to address, apart from a (perceived)
> > need for structure?
> >
> > Theres a couple of old sayings that seem apt here:
> >
> > "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"
> >
> > "keep it simple stupid (KISS)"
> >
> > Now if you think something needs to be done that isn't being done, be
> > specific about it. Tell us simply and in words of one syllable what it
> > is you want! More newbie talks? More community involvement? more
> > installfests? more workshops? Say it, it may get done, but remember you
> > will probably be asked to help (and I note you didn't stand for the
> > committee yourself :-)
> >
> > Of course if you want to form another group with different aims and
> > structure, go ahead! Its a free world. Please don't call it the
> > Canterbury Linux Users Group, it'll just confuse people. However no
> > doubt there will still be a fluid group of people who simply enjoy
> > getting together once a month or so to impart their knowledge for mutual
> > benefit and to socialise with like minds.
> >
> > In relation to this paragraph:
> > > "That the CLUG Executive Committee report back to the CLUG no later
> > > than September 30 2003, on suggested administrative rules for the
> > > CLUG which will cover such things as the purpose, the role of the
> > > Executive Committee, power to form sub committees, control of CLUG
> > > assets and a procedure for winding up the CLUG is that is required at
> > > some future date."
> >
> > That to me, seems to be a waste of time - "lets form a committee to
> > formulate rules about how the committee shall be run". And there are no
> > assets, except for a relativelty modest amount of cash (raised from door
> > entries and maybe some small profit (loss?) on the installfest). Our one
> > true asset is the knowledge of the people who participate. No committee
> > is going to ever control that, particularly in the free (speech) world
> > of linux/open source.
> >
> > Man I'm spending my 2 cent pieces fast!
> >
> > On Fri, 31 Jan 2003 13:52:13 +1300
> >
> > John S Veitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Hello Everyone
> > >
> > > It's clear that there is no CLUG, but many people before me have
> > > expressed surprise at that and like me have looked to improve the
> > > function of the local Linux community by doing some very obvious
> > > things.
> > >
> > > Nick Elder :
> > > "I MOVE THAT THE CLUG MEETING THIS COMING WEDNESDAY BE A GENERAL
> > > MEETING AND THAT AT THIS MEETING WE FORM AN EXECUTIVE !"
> > >
> > > Christopher Sawtell:
> > > "I second that!"
> > >
> > > So at least two people assume that something exists that needs a
> > > committee, and forgive my ignorance but I thought is was the CLUG.
> > >
> > > Never mind. There are some things the require formal process.
> > > Creating the organisation called the CLUG is easy. Someone moves a
> > > motion "that the CLUG be formed" and if that gets support it's done.
> > >
> > > There are a few details to tidy up, but since it's all common sense
> > > stuff it should take about 10 minutes, not three hours.
> > >
> > > Something like this:
> > >
> > > "That the five man committee appointed on 29 January 2003 be
> > > recognised as the Executive Committee of CLUG."
> > >
> > > "That the Executive Committee of the CLUG invite into it's
> > > membership as non-voting members as many other people as it needs to
> > > run the CLUG effectively."
> > >
> > > "That the Executive Committee of the CLUG appoint one of their number
> > > to be a Chairman"
> > >
> > > "That the other four members of the Executive Committee consider how
> > > they might best contribute to the development of the CLUG, and agree
> > > among themselves to adopt appropriate roles and responsibilities."
> > >
> > > "That the CLUG Executive Committee report back to the CLUG no later
> > > than September 30 2003, on suggested administrative rules for the
> > > CLUG which will cover such things as the purpose, the role of the
> > > Executive Committee, power to form sub committees, control of CLUG
> > > assets and a procedure for winding up the CLUG is that is required at
> > > some future date."
> > >
> > >
> > > There should be nothing controversial in the above suggestion. All
> > > the "power" of the Executive Committee is in the hands of the five
> > > people already appointed who group members already know, respect and
> > > trust. Since we are doing some new things it might be beneficial to
> > > use "trust" for a while, while we develop a few rules.
> > >
> > > I'm personally against establishing an Incorporated Society, that's
> > > unnecessary unless we have assets, loans, and/or substantial
> > > property. I would also caution you against adopting the sort of
> > > rules law firms typically offer organisations. Those rules are
> > > designed to protect ownership, and to avoid legal battles (or cause
> > > legal battles) over things like membership rights.
> > >
> > > Good rules give members power. Good rules ensure that the people
> > > elected by the members have defined roles. Good rules ensure that
> > > nobody remains in the same executive position year on year. Good
> > > rules require the executive to train ordinary members to be executive
> > > members. Executive members are themselves preparing to be Chair or
> > > President of Chief Penguin or whatever you call the role of the
> > > senior executive member. (There needs to be rules about money and
> > > assets too, but that's not the key thing.) Good rules are used every
> > > time the Executive Committee or the organisation as a whole does
> > > something. (Sadly the sort of rules most of you know are thrown in a
> > > draw after they come back from the lawyer and are never referred to
> > > again unless there's a serious money problem.)
> > >
> > > Once again none of those principles should be controversial. The aim
> > > of the CLUG is primarily educational, and the organisation is
> > > controlled by it's members. You don't have to join, but if you would
> > > like to join I'm sure someone will make you welcome.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > John
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > John S. Veitch
> > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Photo Available on WWW
> > > http://www.ate.co.nz/johnsveitch.jpg
> > >
> > > Adapt to Experience
> > > URL http://www.ate.co.nz/
> > > for Virus Protection http://www.ate.co.nz/trend/
