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?
I agree John. I think maybe that you should spend a few more months to see whether what you want out of our group is not actually being achieved. Maybe you have jumped to a conclusion based on not enough info' > > > "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 the Executive Committee of the CLUG appoint one of their number > > to be a Chairman" <cartman> yer will repect mah athoritah! </cartman> > > > > "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." Maybe we can move some more motions :-) (must try that bran muffin suggestion) > > > > "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." Ye gods more rules :-/ > > > > > > 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, <evillaugh> power! power! a hahahahah!!!!! </evillaugh> > > 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. So what do we want rules and structure for? We do what we think is necessary or fun that's what a voluntary social/self help group is for. > > > > 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. > > It sounds like you want something a lot more structured John and maybe there are more list members that want this too. But I know I don't and many others in the group don't either. Maybe you could arrange an organisation to fit with what you have in mind and maybe I might join but please don't try to fit our group into something we don't want. However I would like to say to Carl C. that I think that the CLUG *does* exist even if it's only the bunch o' dudes that turn up every month to the meetings. CLUG is as good a name as any and that bunch o dudes does exist :-) Regards, Zane Gilmore One of the five Elected Lord High Grand Poobah Generalissimos :-) P.S. I didn't mean to ridicule with my smart-ass comments but ... I couldn't resist.
