What about using the debian system (http://www.debian.org/vote/)
jeff
Heather Brodeur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have a problem with this...
>
> Ok, it's actually 2 problems, but both deal with discrimination. We
> claim that anyone can be a member, but having this as the only method of
> voting eliminates two groups of people that I can see.
>
> 1) Remote/dis
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:
>
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 impressio
On 4/25/06, Paul Lussier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When exactly did GNHLUG "form" ?
Wed 19 Oct 1994. Or so I'm told:
http://wiki.gnhlug.org/twiki2/bin/view/Www/FirstAnnouncement
-- Ben
___
gnhlug-org mailing list
gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org
http:
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 ;
Jon maddog Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ted,
>
>>well, maybe the second meeting. in 1994.
>
> Please don't exaggerate. :-)
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 un
Ted Roche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'd like a few fresh faces ("the House") and a few of us grey-beards
> ("the Senate") serving on one board that represents the needs and
> desires of the group, interests in trying new projects, mixed with
> the wisdom of past successes and failures.
I vote
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 :)
>>
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 4/20/06, Bill Sconce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Ar, ar, ar. :)
> >
> > 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 snak
>> 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
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 10:13:47 -0400
Ed Lawson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 09:51:08 -0400
> Bill Sconce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Ar, ar, ar. :)
> >
>
> I am very sorry to hear that you have lost an eye and leg.
> Your dry cleaning bills must be high too gi
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 09:51:08 -0400
Bill Sconce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ar, ar, ar. :)
>
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.
Ed Lawson
___
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
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
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 mor
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006, Ted Roche wrote:
Certainly, the ease of doing it this way is attractive. has SwaNH taken other
UGs under its wing?
Apart from the SIGs they directly formed, they adopted the NH Software
President's Forum, took on the Greater Nashua Software Entrepreneurs
Group (GNSEG) as a
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
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 a
[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 th
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 o
That's a very generous offer, David.
Certainly, the ease of doing it this way is attractive. has SwaNH
taken other UGs under its wing?
I'm afraid giving us as much time as we like to engineer a solution
=> infinity. We've been discussing setting up the organization since,
well, maybe the
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.
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
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
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 warmi
[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 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 adv
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
__
[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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> That's a good solution to the problem, too, although it doesn't require
> representation from each chapter. As Bruce said earlier in the thread,
> apathy is far more likely a problem, but a group-wide vote makes election
> of a member from a small and remote chapter
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)
iss
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 woul
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
l
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
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/l
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 agains
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 re
[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
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
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 d
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 jus
[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
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 respon
I'm at work and don't have time to respond in full right now, but
there's one thing I've been thinking on, and I wanted to get toss it
out into this discussion as early as possible.
I believe that, when it comes to advocacy, there should be legal
entity separate from GNHLUG.
Note that I am *NOT*
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
Ted Roche wrote:
> On Apr 18, 2006, at 1:41 PM, Bruce Dawson wrote:
>> I believe the number of at-large council members should be equivalent to
>> the ratio of the number of members that aren't covered by a chapter. (Of
>> course, this requires people to "claim" one and only one chapter, and we
On Apr 18, 2006, at 2:17 PM, Ed Lawson wrote:
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), who-when-and how is it to be
determined that this should be done and how it is done? Not
b
On Apr 18, 2006, at 1:41 PM, Bruce Dawson wrote:
I really like the checks and balances approach!
I think it is essential. There are only benevolent dictators here,
but we want all to feel comfortable and empowered.
"Democarcy is the worst form of government ever created -- except for
all
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), who-wh
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,
> respo
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 standin
52 matches
Mail list logo
