Re: It's time to talk by-laws again...
What about using the debian system (http://www.debian.org/vote/) jeff
Re: It's time to talk by-laws again...
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/distant members. Whether we're talking about people up thar > in the north country, or people on different continents, or the > homebound for that matter, physical presence for identification purposes > limits membership. This limitation is probably easily worked around by allowing for a known/certified person vouching for the person seeking "membership". In otherwords, I don't know you, but I know Matt. If he's signed your key, and vouches for you to "the group", then he's extending his trust of the group to you, and his trust of your to the group. However, I would argue that for things like voting, we would want to limit the extent of vouching. For example, if Matt vouches for you, you could not in turn vouch for someone else. There could be a rule which states that in order to vouch for someone, you have to be a "well-known" member whom people actually know in person. However, one could actually argue that if you never come to a meeting, and *only* partake of the email list, then you probably don't care much about voting for things, since none of will likely ever affect you. > 2) People that only come to physical meetings and don't have/understand > keys and how to use them. If voting is going to be conducted *at* a meeting which one is present, then keys are irrelevent for that person. If voting is *only* going to occur via e-mail, and one *only* attends meetings in reality and does not ever partake of the virtual/online side of GNHLUG, then keys are irrelevent to that person. If one partakes of the virtual/online side of GNHLUG and wishes to vote in organizational matters, given that the entire purpose of our existence is technology and computers, it is not unreasonable to expect one to know, understand, or learn how to use the tools of the trade. That being said, we have a wiki, we should use it, and "Voting Rules" of engagement and supplemental materials should be posted there, including brief, generic instructions on how to use certain more complicated tools like encryption for the purposes of voting. One could also make an argument that there are many "who only use webmail clients which have no facility for using encryption" and that we must cater to them too. We can come up with a million reasons why something is too difficult or excludes some group for whatever reason. Unfortunately, life isn't fair, in fact, it often is downright hostile. So, let's suck it up, deal with it, and move on. -- Seeya, Paul ___ gnhlug-org mailing list gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org
Re: It's time to talk by-laws again...
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: >> >> If you want to have a vote, you need to provide a GPG key >> which is registered at some public key server? >> >> > >I like this idea. > > > >> 1. It makes sure we can assign one vote per GPG key, which, though >>not definitively meets the "one vote per human being" definition, >>is probably "good enough" >> >> > >I think we could expand this to give a close approximation of "one >vote per person" by requiring that one's key identity be signed by a >known GNHLUG key, and the keysigning policy for that key includes: > > 1) in-person verification of at least one form of photo-id > (drivers license, passport, etc.), > >AND > > 2) verification by signed/encrypted token exchange to ensure the > specified email address is owned by the user of the key. > >Then we know the "real" name and email address for each voter, and >know to flag multiple votes coming from the same name and different >keys. > > 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/distant members. Whether we're talking about people up thar in the north country, or people on different continents, or the homebound for that matter, physical presence for identification purposes limits membership. 2) People that only come to physical meetings and don't have/understand keys and how to use them. Now I admit that this is the weaker argument and can probably be overcome with some education and a helping hand getting started, but it is still something to consider. If we can find a way to address these exceptions (because I don't think this will be a problem for the majority of the members) then I say tally ho, let's forge onward with this plan. Heather ___ gnhlug-org mailing list gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org
Re: It's time to talk by-laws again...
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 impression this group got started a lot earlier than that. Of course, since Linux isn't too much older than that, I guess 1994 would be about the right time for starting a LUG :) ___ gnhlug-org mailing list gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org
Re: It's time to talk by-laws again...
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://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org
Re: It's time to talk by-laws again...
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 ;)w -- Seeya, Paul ___ gnhlug-org mailing list gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org
Re: It's time to talk by-laws again...
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 under the impression this group got started a lot earlier than that. Of course, since Linux isn't too much older than that, I guess 1994 would be about the right time for starting a LUG :) -- Seeya, Paul ___ gnhlug-org mailing list gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org
Re: It's time to talk by-laws again...
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 for officially renaming the two "houses" as such:
- The Grey Beards
- The Stuble
:)
--
Seeya,
Paul (who seems to have grey stuble :)
___
gnhlug-org mailing list
gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org
Re: It's time to talk by-laws again...
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 :) >> 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. > How about: If you want to have a vote, you need to provide a GPG key which is registered at some public key server? This provides several checks and balances: 1. It makes sure we can assign one vote per GPG key, which, though not definitively meets the "one vote per human being" definition, is probably "good enough" 2. It allows us to verify each vote, since these should be either signed or encrypted with that voters key. 3. It makes sure no one can vote "on behalf of" another voter without their knowledge. 4. It ensures that anyone who is really interested in voting will at least take the trouble to bother learning about encryption and getting their mail client and GPG config set up correctly. 5. It provices GNHLUG with a ready-made key-ring/web-o-trust. 6. For a "list of official members" we could search a GPG keyserver for GNHLUG :) -- Seeya, Paul ___ gnhlug-org mailing list gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org
Re: It's time to talk by-laws again...
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 Traders...well...maybe not given what one sees there. Ed Lawson ___ gnhlug-org mailing list gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org
Re: It's time to talk by-laws again...
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 snake got 'im.) Maybe it's just resting? They stun easily... -- Ben ___ gnhlug-org mailing list gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org
Re: It's time to talk by-laws again...
>> 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 the Linux Journal called "Pirates: Software and Otherwise" md -- Jon "maddog" Hall Executive Director Linux International(R) email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 80 Amherst St. Voice: +1.603.672.4557 Amherst, N.H. 03031-3032 U.S.A. WWW: http://www.li.org Board Member: Uniforum Association, USENIX Association (R)Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in several countries. (R)Linux International is a registered trademark in the USA used pursuant to a license from Linux Mark Institute, authorized licensor of Linus Torvalds, owner of the Linux trademark on a worldwide basis (R)UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group in the USA and other countries. ___ gnhlug-org mailing list gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org
Re: It's time to talk by-laws again...
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 given the mess that > parrot must make. Aye, 'twas a real mess, for as long as the parrot lasted. (A snake got 'im.) bfk ___ gnhlug-org mailing list gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org
Re: It's time to talk by-laws again...
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 ___ gnhlug-org mailing list gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org
Re: It's time to talk by-laws again...
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
Re: It's time to talk by-laws again...
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 day from the same domain. A more >>sophisticated "attack" is easy, and harder to detect. I believe they >>subsequently required a physical presence at a meeting to vote. > > I'm a bit confused. Did one person make up a bunch of email addresses > at the same company/domain, or did the company ask a bunch of employees > to join/vote? I'd hate to see us have to require physical presence to > vote, I don't think we'd get a representative cross section that way. I was just a member at the time and don't remember the details. Sorry. In fact, I can't even remember if it was a SwANH, GNSEG, or BCS affiliated group (Jerry Feldman or David Marston might remember the incident). I just remember the incident because I thought it was a novel and innovative way of running a dispersed group, and yet the same old gremlin managed to wreck havoc with the high-tech system as it did with the low-tech systems before it. It also showed me the benefits and problems with having a "universal serial number" like a SSN. Voting is a non-trivial problem. Probably why in the 50,000+ years of human existence, it only came into existence in the last 200, and why we're still having problems with it. --Bruce ___ gnhlug-org mailing list gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org
Re: It's time to talk by-laws again...
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 more >sophisticated "attack" is easy, and harder to detect. I believe they >subsequently required a physical presence at a meeting to vote. > > > I'm a bit confused. Did one person make up a bunch of email addresses at the same company/domain, or did the company ask a bunch of employees to join/vote? I'd hate to see us have to require physical presence to vote, I don't think we'd get a representative cross section that way. Heather ___ gnhlug-org mailing list gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org
Re: It's time to talk by-laws again...
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 an affiliate, and lent some kind of support to the Manchester Java Users Group. In other words, there is no single standard for the type of relationship. 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 second meeting. in 1994. I think the exercise of figuring out what it is we want to do and to claim to be, is the reward itself. For some people, yes. I think some are happy with the group just being, without knowing what it claims to be. Do be do be do, that is the question (and song lyric). There is an intersection between mission (that ponderous word) and legalisms when you talk about handling money. .David Marston On Apr 18, 2006, at 10:57 PM, David Marston wrote: ... GNHLUG could join SwANH (the Software Association of New Hampshire) for corporate purposes. That gets you a bank account, P.O. Box, phone number, and non-profit status. All the legal work is taken care of. Then you can still set up GNHLUG-specific forms of governance, and take as long as you want to "engineer" the ideal organizational structure. ___ gnhlug-org mailing list gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org
Re: It's time to talk by-laws again...
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 can't find it. > > Perhaps I'm being a bit over simplistic, but shouldn't we just require > registration to vote? If someone wants to be a "voting member" they > have to let us know who they are, where to find them, and what their > aliases are. If someone wants to remain anonymous to the list or > chapters (or SIGs), fine, but they aren't eligible to vote. Do we > really expect that people would make up and register multiple > personalities just to skew the vote? Sure, we can do that. I just want to be in the position of "I told you so.", and pray that I don't have to ;-) 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 more sophisticated "attack" is easy, and harder to detect. I believe they subsequently required a physical presence at a meeting to vote. --Bruce ___ gnhlug-org mailing list gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org
Re: It's time to talk by-laws again...
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 any more, and I (braver than normal) raised my hand to take over "leading" the organization for eight or so years afterwards. At that time it was determined that we should not get any more "organized", and several times in the years I was the un-elected leader of the un-organization we discussed the question and voted down (in an informal way, since we were not "formal") the option of becoming "more formal". It is only within the past two or three years that we have seriously discussed "organizing", with a percentage of the people agreeing that this might be useful. I see both sides, and I think that both side's needs can be met, but I think it takes real organization, with a real charter, real goals and real checks and balances. The stuff David mentioned with SwANH solves none of these issues, although it does make the financials and mechanisms a bit easier. md P.S. Ted, I know that you were just tongue in cheek when you said it was the second meetingit could have been as long as the fifthwe did not keep minutes at the time. -- Jon "maddog" Hall Executive Director Linux International(R) email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 80 Amherst St. Voice: +1.603.672.4557 Amherst, N.H. 03031-3032 U.S.A. WWW: http://www.li.org Board Member: Uniforum Association, USENIX Association (R)Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in several countries. (R)Linux International is a registered trademark in the USA used pursuant to a license from Linux Mark Institute, authorized licensor of Linus Torvalds, owner of the Linux trademark on a worldwide basis (R)UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group in the USA and other countries. ___ gnhlug-org mailing list gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org
Re: It's time to talk by-laws again...
[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 than signing up for some mailing list. One of the things of a "membership" organization is that you have to define what a member is (and sometimes how to get rid of members). I think that having a person register as a member, then perhaps "tick off" on a web-based membership form what mailing lists associated with which email addresses they wish to have might be a way to go. And the registration form should probably have one of those graphical "type in what you see" to help keep down the auto-registration people. md -- Jon "maddog" Hall Executive Director Linux International(R) email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 80 Amherst St. Voice: +1.603.672.4557 Amherst, N.H. 03031-3032 U.S.A. WWW: http://www.li.org Board Member: Uniforum Association, USENIX Association (R)Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in several countries. (R)Linux International is a registered trademark in the USA used pursuant to a license from Linux Mark Institute, authorized licensor of Linus Torvalds, owner of the Linux trademark on a worldwide basis (R)UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group in the USA and other countries. ___ gnhlug-org mailing list gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org
Re: It's time to talk by-laws again...
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 on the general mailing some > >time ago - I just can't find it. > > Perhaps I'm being a bit over simplistic, but shouldn't we just require > registration to vote? If someone wants to be a "voting member" they > have to let us know who they are, where to find them, and what their > aliases are. If someone wants to remain anonymous to the list or > chapters (or SIGs), fine, but they aren't eligible to vote. Do we > really expect that people would make up and register multiple > personalities just to skew the vote? I agree, perhaps if one wants to vote they should also have to submit their physical address. These can be held private, and can be used to prevent chicago style ballot stuffing. Also - I don't really think that ballot stuffing is going to be a problem with this crowd. > > -Heather (does it really have to be _that_ difficult) Brodeur > -- Jeff Kinz, Emergent Research, Hudson, MA. Speech Recognition Technology was used to create this e-mail ___ gnhlug-org mailing list gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org
Re: It's time to talk by-laws again...
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 second meeting. in 1994. I think the exercise of figuring out what it is we want to do and to claim to be, is the reward itself. On Apr 18, 2006, at 10:57 PM, David Marston wrote: 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 least email me privately. GNHLUG could join SwANH (the Software Association of New Hampshire) for corporate purposes. That gets you a bank account, P.O. Box, phone number, and non-profit status. All the legal work is taken care of. Then you can still set up GNHLUG-specific forms of governance, and take as long as you want to "engineer" the ideal organizational structure. .David Marston [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ gnhlug-org mailing list gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org Ted Roche Ted Roche & Associates, LLC http://www.tedroche.com ___ gnhlug-org mailing list gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org
Re: It's time to talk by-laws again...
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. > > Perhaps I'm being a bit over simplistic, but shouldn't we just require registration to vote? If someone wants to be a "voting member" they have to let us know who they are, where to find them, and what their aliases are. If someone wants to remain anonymous to the list or chapters (or SIGs), fine, but they aren't eligible to vote. Do we really expect that people would make up and register multiple personalities just to skew the vote? -Heather (does it really have to be _that_ difficult) Brodeur ___ gnhlug-org mailing list gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org
Re: It's time to talk by-laws again...
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 participated in the past and from > their own candidate statements) will be the ones selected by the rest of the > group (whoever "the rest of the group" turns out to be). Unfortunately, the ones "who do the work and make the group go" also include the groups with hidden agendas and those who can't tolerate things they don't understand. Once these people get in control, we have to suffer with them until they are voted out. So far, we have been lucky. > If you elect the best, they should reach out to represent all the groups. > Perhaps you can make that a responsibility of one of the officers. Ah. Some weasel words to be aware of: Should, seems, "you can make". --Bruce ___ gnhlug-org mailing list gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org
Re: It's time to talk by-laws again...
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 of groups all over the state that make up the loved-blob of GNHLUG, and for each of those groups, there is typically one person that each group looks to for organization of each chapter. That person (in my opinion) has a marvelous standing to by ~my~ representative in a provisional start up governance. Once this council is set, each of those members get to choose the X-number (to make it odd) of "At Large" members to the council pooling from those members who (we all know) contribute that something-extra to GNHLUG (The Teds, Eds, Bens, MDs, and countless others who's names I sadly can't pull out of my brain at the moment). Even those like me who don't always contribute the time to be an everyday LUGger know those names and can't complain (too loudly ;-) ) Groups that come into existence and wish to join the GNHLUG umbrella can form and attend these council meetings. Once the group is established and has a record or regular meetings, for argument, over a 6 month time period is then extended an invitation to have ~voting~ representation within that council. At-large members can be adjusted and added to accordingly to keep the numbers odd, or, as I saw mentioned, have a voting rule that a tie vote is a lose. As for the balance, we are all technologically capable enough to enact a quorum via the mail-list. We're back to that "one-vote/one-person" issue, on this one, however. This quorum can be enacted and recorded at the LUG level and filtered upwards to the council to keep it manageable. Not very timely, but manageable. All I can consider for ensuring each person gets one vote is going to be a manual process. If I wish to register to be a voting member in my specific local LUG (MerriLUG in my case) I'd need to register, provide correct and confirmable information and receive a confirmed identifier with which to use in recognition of that vote (a gnhlug.org e-mail address or some such token). If someone is not a local member (point to the other hemisphere), I don't necessarily need to declare a LUG to be a member of, but I get a quorum vote without getting a LUG vote. The mechanics of the confirmation are probably going to need to be manual, and a person should be selected and/or approved by counsil to take on this role (for what it's worth, I'll volunteer for the first go). All information utilized for this process is 100% private, owned by the registering user, and cannot be used for any other purpose (that's the libertarian in me). Registrations will need to be renewed for the sake of keeping an accurate number of active voters, so to speak. With that said, that's just my idea on the mechanics of getting the provisional governing body together, and it looks strikingly similar to what is already in place. I can't see that stamping that into formal existence will cause any kind of waves. Any number used in those paragraphs should be taken as variable to fit the realistic outlook. As to the Organization Goals: We educate and advocate on the uses and capabilities of software, with a direct focus on Free and Open Sourced Software. I think that we really only need a wordsmith to state just that in a very verbose charter. As to the representation. No person or persons can state that they represent GNHLUG without direct approval from the council by majority vote. However, anyone can say that they are a ~member~ of GNHLUG so long as they don't misrepresent that membership to reflect direct representation or direct approval. (I think I've been reading too many city ordinance). All of this is opinion and is just begging to be critiqued!!!~ Star
Re: It's time to talk by-laws again...
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 warming to your idea of one election slate GNHLUG-wide;) While universal representation is an admirable goal, the reality is that we're likely to find around 8 volunteers group-wide to run. So, one slate of GNHLUG-wide candidates for whatever-we're-calling- the-executive-board and choose one chapter-LUG to vote for, and as many SIGs as interested. "Seven from column A, one from Column B, any you want from column C." That works for me. Other ideas? Ted Roche Ted Roche & Associates, LLC http://www.tedroche.com ___ gnhlug-org mailing list gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org
Re: It's time to talk by-laws again...
[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. "Legal entities" are the ones that take the most time, and the time that is of the least "thank you" factor. Creating a board, voting, keeping records, doing income tax (which still has to be done, just nothing paid)all the stuff that most of us have fought for so long. As one who has had to start up (and more importantly, close down) a couple of these, it is all pain and no gain unless you really need them. md -- Jon "maddog" Hall Executive Director Linux International(R) email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 80 Amherst St. Voice: +1.603.672.4557 Amherst, N.H. 03031-3032 U.S.A. WWW: http://www.li.org Board Member: Uniforum Association, USENIX Association (R)Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in several countries. (R)Linux International is a registered trademark in the USA used pursuant to a license from Linux Mark Institute, authorized licensor of Linus Torvalds, owner of the Linux trademark on a worldwide basis (R)UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group in the USA and other countries. ___ gnhlug-org mailing list gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org
Re: It's time to talk by-laws again...
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 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. -- Ben ___ gnhlug-org mailing list gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org
Re: It's time to talk by-laws again...
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 ___ gnhlug-org mailing list gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org
Re: It's time to talk by-laws again...
[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 and > fundamental issues concerning the "mission and role" of GNHLUG. I think this is the real issue. But I also think that having one organization with a primary and secondary focus is not that hard...maybe even a third "focus": o maintain and coordinate a communications link between the various free and open source people in the Greater New Hampshire area (mailing lists and beer drinking) o encourage and educate others in the use of FOSS (go out and hog-tie the stupid windows users) o organize and coordinate events that help promote the first two bullets etc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > I think Ted and Ben stirred all this up just to get more of us to Hoss > Traders where we could chat endlessly about it over fried bread and bad > coffee. Hey, don't you think the framers of the US Constitution did the same thing? (Hmmm, did they have fried dough back then?) I can be there Saturday morning. md -- Jon "maddog" Hall Executive Director Linux International(R) email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 80 Amherst St. Voice: +1.603.672.4557 Amherst, N.H. 03031-3032 U.S.A. WWW: http://www.li.org Board Member: Uniforum Association, USENIX Association (R)Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in several countries. (R)Linux International is a registered trademark in the USA used pursuant to a license from Linux Mark Institute, authorized licensor of Linus Torvalds, owner of the Linux trademark on a worldwide basis (R)UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group in the USA and other countries. ___ gnhlug-org mailing list gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org
Re: It's time to talk by-laws again...
[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 less likely. This is the issue > the House of Reps vs. Senate model was designed to address. So, the three > guys in the "North of the Notch Perlmonger's SIG" are unlikely to get > representation and will be less interested in being affiliated with GNHLUG > if their people aren't invited to the cookout. 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. :-) 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 participated in the past and from their own candidate statements) will be the ones selected by the rest of the group (whoever "the rest of the group" turns out to be). If you elect the best, they should reach out to represent all the groups. Perhaps you can make that a responsibility of one of the officers. >Outside the hemisphere, even. Even harder to get representation. md -- Jon "maddog" Hall Executive Director Linux International(R) email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 80 Amherst St. Voice: +1.603.672.4557 Amherst, N.H. 03031-3032 U.S.A. WWW: http://www.li.org Board Member: Uniforum Association, USENIX Association (R)Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in several countries. (R)Linux International is a registered trademark in the USA used pursuant to a license from Linux Mark Institute, authorized licensor of Linus Torvalds, owner of the Linux trademark on a worldwide basis (R)UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group in the USA and other countries. ___ gnhlug-org mailing list gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org
Re: It's time to talk by-laws again...
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) issues. I may well be wrong on this, but I see the issues around structure and voting as more bedeviling in terms of arriving at a good solution given GNHLUG's history and its participants. It is for that reason I believe Ben's thought of more than one organization has some merit or at least it leads us to think about some important and fundamental issues concerning the "mission and role" of GNHLUG. I think Ted and Ben stirred all this up just to get more of us to Hoss Traders where we could chat endlessly about it over fried bread and bad coffee. Ed Lawson ___ gnhlug-org mailing list gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org
Re: It's time to talk by-laws again...
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 would suggest a census in preparation for elections every two years that adds matching seats and calculates the number of At-Large seats. That way, we don't have to immediately add a seat the day a chapter forms. Chapters that dissolve within that period would lose the ability to vote, and tie votes would be considered defeated. One membership list for GNHLUG statewide and members vote for a council to lead the parent organization from the membership list. Each member can affiliate with one chapter (but attend others), and therefore get to vote for the leadership of that one chapter. Probably most people will join the chapter closest to them, but they will not have to do that. They can also join one or more SIGs, and then vote for that SIG leadership. 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 less likely. This is the issue the House of Reps vs. Senate model was designed to address. So, the three guys in the "North of the Notch Perlmonger's SIG" are unlikely to get representation and will be less interested in being affiliated with GNHLUG if their people aren't invited to the cookout. I would like to see a database set up that holds this information (would be nice to have if the IRS comes knocking), and would make "controlling" the voting list easier also. With paper and digital backups. [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: ... we may want to more clearly limit what would qualify as a "voting member." Ideas on this sticky point very much welcomed. Sticky indeed, since we have some people on the list that live outside of New Hampshire. Outside the hemisphere, even. I would formulate it another way. I would create GNHLUG as a 501(c) 6, then (if we wanted to do charitable things) create an offshoot as a 501(c)3 for charitable works. A 501(c)6 can always give money to a 501(c)3, but not necessarily the other way around. Ed, do you have wisdom to add? Yes, I'd like to learn more if anyone has more insights. Ted Roche Ted Roche & Associates, LLC http://www.tedroche.com ___ gnhlug-org mailing list gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org
Re: It's time to talk by-laws again...
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 least email me privately. GNHLUG could join SwANH (the Software Association of New Hampshire) for corporate purposes. That gets you a bank account, P.O. Box, phone number, and non-profit status. All the legal work is taken care of. Then you can still set up GNHLUG-specific forms of governance, and take as long as you want to "engineer" the ideal organizational structure. .David Marston [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ gnhlug-org mailing list gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org
Re: It's time to talk by-laws again...
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/listinfo/gnhlug-org
Re: It's time to talk by-laws again...
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 against the use of software in any specific situation, be it government, schools, private industry or homes is the position of an *individual* and not an official stance of the organization. GNHLUG can provide *education* about Linux and FOSS but does not advocate a particular position. No one within GNHLUG is granted the right to claim to speak for the organization. If you would like to form a Political Action Committee to lobby for legislative action requiring the consideration of FOSS in all government contracts, go for it, and feel free to mention what you are doing on the GNHLUG forums. (And where I can sign up!) If a school or government is considering FOSS and would like to learn more about that, we're a great organization to contact to put them in touch with *individuals* who can inform them and offer them that *individual's* opinions. From the proposed Articles (ref: http://wiki.gnhlug.org/twiki2/bin/ view/Organizational/ProposedArticlesOfAgreement): "The objectives for the organization are primarily to provide the basic structure and support for meetings and social events for all who are interested in Linux and related software and to provide the resources and infrastructure needed to help its members engaged in educational programs about and providing free assistance to users of Linux and related software." Note that I am *NOT* saying GNHLUG should not be an incorporated legal entity. I think there should be a legally-enabled "GNHLUG". I'm just saying that advocacy should be done under the name of a separate entity. I don't think that anyone should claim to represent the opinion of GNHLUG as there ain't no such beast. By "advocacy", I mean going to law-making sessions, or to school board meetings, or business seminars, or whatever, and telling people they should use FOSS. I'd encourage GNHLUG members to be active in local politics and to make their opinions known. On the other hand, if we create a separate group for purposes of advocacy, we can put some explicit goals in the charter from the get-go. Anyone who doesn't agree with those goals is free not to sign-up. Thus bypassing the whole consensus problem. If we want to hire lobbiests and a swanky office and fund print fancy brochures, then that is likely to be a separate organization. If we (*individuals* who just happen to be members of GNHLUG) choose to appear before the legislature or our local school committee, we should be clear that we are acting on our own, and not as a spokesperson of GNHLUG. This may have additional legal benefits as well. From what Ed has said, 501(c)(3) groups are "better" in terms of receiving donations, but have more restrictions on what they can do in terms of political activism. Well, md's expressed concern that 501(c)3 may be unreachable at the moment. And perhaps less desirable, in some respects. My inclination is to try for the NH registration first, then see if we can sort out a decent set of rules and establish a bank account and a membership list and hold an election. If we get that far, we can continue to research the steps for federal status. First, let's become SOMETHING, and build up some history with minutes and financial records. We can watch how the winds blow (and perhaps shift) and determine what course we ought to sail and what beachhead we ought to aim at. Ted Roche Ted Roche & Associates, LLC http://www.tedroche.com ___ gnhlug-org mailing list gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org
Re: It's time to talk by-laws again...
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 representing the constituents and one representing
>> the organization?
>
> Oh, no! I am a HUGE fan of the Constitution, and think bi-cameral
> legislatures have their place, but I think that's an over-engineered
> solution to our needs. 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 agree - having both a "Senate" and a "House" is over-engineered for
our purposes. We just need to figure out how to phrase the membership
definition so that it meets our requirements. I suspect corporate
officials should be allowed to be voting members, but only have one vote.
>> By "representing the organization", I mean like a representative for the
>> organization's resources - so the maintainers of the mailing lists, web
>> site, meeting rooms, chapters, sigs, ... have a voice.
>
> That's interesting. I think that the "Activists" - those who actively
> participate in the organization - have a greater sense of investment.
> And deserve to have a voice. And whose contributions should obligate
> us to listen.
Hmm. Maybe they should be officers?
However, our ultimate goals should be to have everyone
> participating. Mailing list maintainers, webmasters, TWiki tweakers,
> chapter coordinators, SIG leaders, announcement writers, Librarians,
> room schedulers, TaskMasters, meeting presenters, soda bringers, all
> deserve a voice.
Oh. I completely agree with this. The problem is: how do we prevent one
*person* from voting more than once, while keeping things simple enough
so that people actually vote?
>> 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 couldn't blame anyone for that.
I was thinking of some specific individuals who haven't piped up. Yet.
>> 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.
>
> Gee, we ought to tell our government how to do this. For now, I'll bet
> we can circulate a sign-up sheet at meetings and (virtually) online and
> find a volunteer to maintain the list and a committee to review the
> votes and make the entire thing open and transparent and auditable.
This would probably be OK for the short term. But I personally would
like something a bit more robust for the long-term - its too easy to
create multiple addresses on the mailing list.
>> Hmmm. Of course, this means that we can't rely on the TWiki to provide
>> "accurate" answers!
>
> With all due respect,.. nah. You're just baiting me here, aren't you {g}?
Yup! :-)
>> That would be a good idea. But then we need a backup, ... If we can
>> create/find a technology solution, that would probably be best 'cause
>> then we wouldn't need another officer.
>
> It's a task we assign to the list of elected volunteers that make up
> the board, and they appoint a committee amongst themselves and with any
> other willing volunteers.
We could, but that sounds like a lot of room for compromise in accuracy.
I just remember Diabold, Florida, and disenfranchised voters.
>> (Our biggest problem is apathy, not activism!)
>
> Agreed. So I propose we form the first interim board (until elections
> in a year or two) with the chapter/SIG leads (or their designee) and
> three At-Large members by unanimous acclaim at that meeting, and let
> them (us) work out the details.
I'm OK with that. Let's see what the "apathic court" has to say (if
anyone bothers to read this far).
>> Another possibility is to have the chapter/sig chairs form a "senate",
>> and the constituent representatives form a "house". (But I've never
>> understood how conflicts between the two are resolved.)
>
> It's real similar to the making of sausage, I suspect.
Which is something the pigs have no say in!
--Bruce
___
gnhlug-org mailing list
gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org
Re: It's time to talk by-laws again...
[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 becoming very hard to get. USENIX, as non-political and "benevolent" as it is, might not be able to get 501(c)3 status if they were to apply today. SAGE (when it was trying to break off from USENIX) had to apply for a 501(c)6. Let's do this in stages (and I am doing this loosely, and IANAL): o GNHLUG as it is today is an amorphous blob. There is no one "in charge" officially, there is no one to write a check to, there is no one "responsible" in any way. Despite this we patter on, because there are enough good souls that raise their hands to do things. o incorporation - gives you an entity that companies can interact with, but that entity can be profit-making, not-for-profit or non-profit. The corporation (versus the solely-owned proprietorship or partnership) gives the "hand-raisers" a certain legal insulation and also allows the organization to live beyond the owner's lives (or interests). As much as I hate the overhead involved, for GNHLUG to meet its "goals" (whatever they are) it may have to incorporate. Once we do incorporate, then we have these choices: o profit-making we all know about and they pay taxes o not-for-profit, probably would not have to pay taxes, but has to be very careful not to have money that spans the tax year o non-profit - can have money in the bank that spans tax years (albeit just a certain percentage of revenues 501(c)3 - benevolent, religious, educational, can't lobby (but can influence) 501(c)6 - membership, lobbyist 501(c)3 is most valuable from certain tax standpoints, since it allows people to donate money to it without being members. On the other hand they are more limited to what they can do with the money in a lot of ways. 501(c)6 is still valuable, since it allows you to collect monies and do business WITHOUT having to pay taxes. It also allows membership fees (in certain cases) to be deducted, and would give a corporate entity the tax umbrella. md -- Jon "maddog" Hall Executive Director Linux International(R) email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 80 Amherst St. Voice: +1.603.672.4557 Amherst, N.H. 03031-3032 U.S.A. WWW: http://www.li.org Board Member: Uniforum Association, USENIX Association (R)Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in several countries. (R)Linux International is a registered trademark in the USA used pursuant to a license from Linux Mark Institute, authorized licensor of Linus Torvalds, owner of the Linux trademark on a worldwide basis (R)UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group in the USA and other countries. ___ gnhlug-org mailing list gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org
Re: It's time to talk by-laws again...
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 one
representing
the organization?
Oh, no! I am a HUGE fan of the Constitution, and think bi-cameral
legislatures have their place, but I think that's an over-engineered
solution to our needs. 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.
By "representing the organization", I mean like a representative
for the
organization's resources - so the maintainers of the mailing lists,
web
site, meeting rooms, chapters, sigs, ... have a voice.
That's interesting. I think that the "Activists" - those who actively
participate in the organization - have a greater sense of investment.
And deserve to have a voice. And whose contributions should obligate
us to listen. However, our ultimate goals should be to have everyone
participating. Mailing list maintainers, webmasters, TWiki tweakers,
chapter coordinators, SIG leaders, announcement writers, Librarians,
room schedulers, TaskMasters, meeting presenters, soda bringers, all
deserve a voice.
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 couldn't blame anyone for that.
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.
Gee, we ought to tell our government how to do this. For now, I'll
bet we can circulate a sign-up sheet at meetings and (virtually)
online and find a volunteer to maintain the list and a committee to
review the votes and make the entire thing open and transparent and
auditable.
Hmmm. Of course, this means that we can't rely on the TWiki to provide
"accurate" answers!
With all due respect,.. nah. You're just baiting me here, aren't you
{g}?
That would be a good idea. But then we need a backup, ... If we can
create/find a technology solution, that would probably be best 'cause
then we wouldn't need another officer.
It's a task we assign to the list of elected volunteers that make up
the board, and they appoint a committee amongst themselves and with
any other willing volunteers.
(Our biggest problem is apathy, not activism!)
Agreed. So I propose we form the first interim board (until elections
in a year or two) with the chapter/SIG leads (or their designee) and
three At-Large members by unanimous acclaim at that meeting, and let
them (us) work out the details.
Another possibility is to have the chapter/sig chairs form a "senate",
and the constituent representatives form a "house". (But I've never
understood how conflicts between the two are resolved.)
It's real similar to the making of sausage, I suspect.
Ted Roche
Ted Roche & Associates, LLC
http://www.tedroche.com
___
gnhlug-org mailing list
gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org
Re: It's time to talk by-laws again...
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 details get involved. And they always do. You ever watched a session of Congress? Heck, you ever monitored the traffic on the -discuss list? :) Saying "We're all for Linux" is a far cry from a consensus on how one should go about advocating that in schools, government, etc. In other forums, I've seen long debates about whether FOSS should be given preferred status over, or simply put on equal grounds with, proprietary offerings. Heck, there are still GNHLUG people who appear to be rather undecided on the idea of whether we should incorporate *at all*. Although I suspect these cases are due more to inertia and a general dislike of bureaucracy than anything substantial, I can just envision the group grope that will ensue if we try to agree on a program of political action. I'm just saying I think it might be better if we bypassed any such controversy by keeping "GNHLUG" more "neutral". And personally, I'd feel uncomfortable saying "I represent GNHLUG. Our positions is..." in an advocacy sales-pitch if I wasn't sure I actually *did* represent GNHLUG. On the third hand, maybe there's some other pre-existing organization we could hitch our wagon to to avoid that problem for GNHLUG, saving us the trouble of creating two legal entities just to avoid that problem. > So unless we are a religion ... eh, nevermind. :) > ... or a real charitable entity (which means our members do not get > compensation for what they "give") I don't understand. I thought one of the reasons for seeking (c)(3) status was so that contributions would be tax-deductible. ?? -- Ben ___ gnhlug-org mailing list gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org
Re: It's time to talk by-laws again...
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 just majority, but plurality. Since you bring it up... I'm not particularly keen for this aspect of things to be a significant part of decision-making in GNHLUG. Frankly, if anything "we" try to do as "GNHLUG" generates that much controversy that so many people would vote against it, I'd say that's a sign we perhaps shouldn't be doing it. (And, yes, I do also realize that some issues are just unavoidable *and* unavoidably controversial. But we're a Linux user group, not a general government, so one can hope such will be few.) -- Ben ___ gnhlug-org mailing list gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org
Re: It's time to talk by-laws again...
[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 count of > the group to an odd number. 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). I would suggest this: One membership list for GNHLUG statewide and members vote for a council to lead the parent organization from the membership list. Each member can affiliate with one chapter (but attend others), and therefore get to vote for the leadership of that one chapter. Probably most people will join the chapter closest to them, but they will not have to do that. They can also join one or more SIGs, and then vote for that SIG leadership. I would like to see a database set up that holds this information (would be nice to have if the IRS comes knocking), and would make "controlling" the voting list easier also. [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > 7. Membership is open to the public. Representation should be available to > everyone, but we may want to more clearly limit what would qualify as a > "voting member." Ideas on this sticky point very much welcomed. Sticky indeed, since we have some people on the list that live outside of New Hampshire. As to Ben's input: > The reason why I think this is simple: 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). I think that will be unnecessarily complicated and cumbersome -- > we can discuss this aspect more if people don't agree. 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. [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > This may have additional legal benefits as well. From what Ed has said, > 501(c)(3) groups are "better" in terms of receiving donations, but have more > restrictions on what they can do in terms of political activism. Sounds good > for the non-advocacy group. The 501(c)(6) type of group is less restricted > -- good for the advocacy group -- but contributions aren't tax-deductible. The issues of 501(c)3 vs 501(c)6 may be pretty much of a moot point at this time. The IRS (who determines such things) has been much tougher lately on who gets 501(c)3 status. So unless we are a religion or a real charitable entity (which means our members do not get compensation for what they "give"), we may have to go with a 501(c)6 as a "membership based organization" anyway. I would formulate it another way. I would create GNHLUG as a 501(c)6, then (if we wanted to do charitable things) create an offshoot as a 501(c)3 for charitable works. A 501(c)6 can always give money to a 501(c)3, but not necessarily the other way around. Ed, do you have wisdom to add? md -- Jon "maddog" Hall Executive Director Linux International(R) email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 80 Amherst St. Voice: +1.603.672.4557 Amherst, N.H. 03031-3032 U.S.A. WWW: http://www.li.org Board Member: Uniforum Association, USENIX Association (R)Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in several countries. (R)Linux International is a registered trademark in the USA used pursuant to a license from Linux Mark Institute, authorized licensor of Linus Torvalds, owner of the Linux trademark on a worldwide basis (R)UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group in the USA and other countries. ___ gnhlug-org mailing list gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org
Re: It's time to talk by-laws again...
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 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. As in one vote over an even split can dictate the path of the organization. Ultimately it is not a decision by consensus mode of operation. This can be the cause of much mischief just as it can be a way of governing effectively. Ed Lawson ___ gnhlug-org mailing list gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org
Re: It's time to talk by-laws again...
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* saying GNHLUG should not be an incorporated legal entity. I think there should be a legally-enabled "GNHLUG". I'm just saying that advocacy should be done under the name of a separate entity. By "advocacy", I mean going to law-making sessions, or to school board meetings, or business seminars, or whatever, and telling people they should use FOSS. The reason why I think this is simple: 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). I think that will be unnecessarily complicated and cumbersome -- we can discuss this aspect more if people don't agree. On the other hand, if we create a separate group for purposes of advocacy, we can put some explicit goals in the charter from the get-go. Anyone who doesn't agree with those goals is free not to sign-up. Thus bypassing the whole consensus problem. This may have additional legal benefits as well. From what Ed has said, 501(c)(3) groups are "better" in terms of receiving donations, but have more restrictions on what they can do in terms of political activism. Sounds good for the non-advocacy group. The 501(c)(6) type of group is less restricted -- good for the advocacy group -- but contributions aren't tax-deductible. Gotta run... ___ gnhlug-org mailing list gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org
Re: It's time to talk by-laws again...
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 ___ gnhlug-org mailing list gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org
Re: It's time to talk by-laws again...
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 >> still have to define a chapter.) > > Yikes! This could be pretty circular. I was thinking that a couple of > notable members and/or some past leaders might be persuaded to > volunteer to help out on the governing body. Of course there could be > honorary and non-voting options for that. > > Representation of the non-chapter-affiliated (mailing lists, forums, > etc.) is an intriguing idea. Thanks for bringing that up. 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 one representing the organization? By "representing the organization", I mean like a representative for the organization's resources - so the maintainers of the mailing lists, web site, meeting rooms, chapters, sigs, ... have a voice. >>> 7. Membership is open to the public. Representation should be >>> available >>> to everyone, but we may want to more clearly limit what would qualify >>> as a "voting member." Ideas on this sticky point very much welcomed. >> >> For now, a voting member should be someone on the mailing list, >> registered on the web site and/or attended at least 2 chapter meetings >> in one year. I'd like a more formal method that would ensure there's >> only one vote per person, instead of one vote per email address though. > > Hmmm... wonder if anyone on this list is familiar with maintaining > voter lists. 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 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. >> I also believe that SIG groups should have the same benefits (and >> representative power) as chapters. > > Good point. Where I said "chapter" I did intend "chapter or SIG" or any > other form of sub-group we might want to create. I figured that's what you meant. I just wanted to ensure their inclusion. As to "membership" in > a chapter, that's tricky, too. I intentionally cheated the TWiki to > appear as a "member" of all chapters, as I try to catch at least a > couple of meetings each year at every location. But that doesn't > entitle me to anything more, certainly not more votes. Hmmm. Of course, this means that we can't rely on the TWiki to provide "accurate" answers! > Maybe we need to add a Member Chair to the list of officers. A "Keeper > of the Lists." That would be a good idea. But then we need a backup, ... If we can create/find a technology solution, that would probably be best 'cause then we wouldn't need another officer. (Our biggest problem is apathy, not activism!) Another possibility is to have the chapter/sig chairs form a "senate", and the constituent representatives form a "house". (But I've never understood how conflicts between the two are resolved.) --Bruce ___ gnhlug-org mailing list gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org
Re: It's time to talk by-laws again...
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 being an organized group, I suspect someone will simply have to take the bit in theteeth and do it since there is no mechanism to do otherwise. (Sadly, slowly and reluctantly raises hand) That would be me. That said, I believe a concrete proposal should be developed, circulated, and presented to the attendees of a quarterly meeting for an up or down vote. Absolutely. I say that because it is important that all those who participate in GNHLUG should have a chance to review and comment before the finalization of the necessary docs, but I also believe it is not feasible to have all concerns addressed or accepted nor for a final document to be developed at a given general meeting. Agreed. What I've proposed are talking points: is this feasible? What have I missed? Once -org has some level of concurrence, we'll draft something and bring it to the -discuss list for general discussion, and likely print out some copies to circulate at chapter meetings. Then we hold a general meeting to debate and discuss and either sign what we've got or agree to return with a revised document. Sounds like a good topic to merge with a quarterly summer meeting with a key-signing party and a summer cookout, eh? Ted Roche Ted Roche & Associates, LLC http://www.tedroche.com ___ gnhlug-org mailing list gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org
Re: It's time to talk by-laws again...
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 the others." -- Winston Churchill 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 still have to define a chapter.) Yikes! This could be pretty circular. I was thinking that a couple of notable members and/or some past leaders might be persuaded to volunteer to help out on the governing body. Of course there could be honorary and non-voting options for that. Representation of the non-chapter-affiliated (mailing lists, forums, etc.) is an intriguing idea. Thanks for bringing that up. 3. Council members elect a chair to run the meetings and act as GNHLUG within specified limits between meetings, a secretary to record meetings, discussions and decisions, and a treasurer to maintain and account for whatever funds we decide to work with. I think that should read "elect a chair to run the organizational and quarterly meetings and act as..."; keeping in mind that a chair can delegate the actually em-cee'ing of a meeting to someone else. Good. 7. Membership is open to the public. Representation should be available to everyone, but we may want to more clearly limit what would qualify as a "voting member." Ideas on this sticky point very much welcomed. For now, a voting member should be someone on the mailing list, registered on the web site and/or attended at least 2 chapter meetings in one year. I'd like a more formal method that would ensure there's only one vote per person, instead of one vote per email address though. Hmmm... wonder if anyone on this list is familiar with maintaining voter lists. I'm not sure we have an easy way to distinguish email addresses. I also believe that SIG groups should have the same benefits (and representative power) as chapters. Good point. Where I said "chapter" I did intend "chapter or SIG" or any other form of sub-group we might want to create. As to "membership" in a chapter, that's tricky, too. I intentionally cheated the TWiki to appear as a "member" of all chapters, as I try to catch at least a couple of meetings each year at every location. But that doesn't entitle me to anything more, certainly not more votes. Maybe we need to add a Member Chair to the list of officers. A "Keeper of the Lists." Ted Roche Ted Roche & Associates, LLC http://www.tedroche.com ___ gnhlug-org mailing list gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org
Re: It's time to talk by-laws again...
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-when-and how is it to be determined that this should be done and how it is done? Not being an organized group, I suspect someone will simply have to take the bit in theteeth and do it since there is no mechanism to do otherwise. That said, I believe a concrete proposal should be developed, circulated, and presented to the attendees of a quarterly meeting for an up or down vote. I say that because it is important that all those who participate in GNHLUG should have a chance to review and comment before the finalization of the necessary docs, but I also believe it is not feasible to have all concerns addressed or accepted nor for a final document to be developed at a given general meeting. Ed Lawson Ed Lawson ___ gnhlug-org mailing list gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org
Re: It's time to talk by-laws again...
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, > responsibilities, checks and balances. I really like the checks and balances approach! ... > 2. Two or more "at large" members can serve, bringing the total count > of the group to an odd number. 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 still have to define a chapter.) > 3. Council members elect a chair to run the meetings and act as GNHLUG > within specified limits between meetings, a secretary to record > meetings, discussions and decisions, and a treasurer to maintain and > account for whatever funds we decide to work with. I think that should read "elect a chair to run the organizational and quarterly meetings and act as..."; keeping in mind that a chair can delegate the actually em-cee'ing of a meeting to someone else. > 4. All chapters can recall their representative. Besides regular > elections, we'll need a recall mechanism. > > 5 . A sufficiently large group can recall an at-large member. ... > 7. Membership is open to the public. Representation should be available > to everyone, but we may want to more clearly limit what would qualify > as a "voting member." Ideas on this sticky point very much welcomed. For now, a voting member should be someone on the mailing list, registered on the web site and/or attended at least 2 chapter meetings in one year. I'd like a more formal method that would ensure there's only one vote per person, instead of one vote per email address though. > I've posted this to the -org list for preliminary feedback. Based on > that, I'd like to open the discussion to the -discuss list, then draft > paperwork to get this done. I'm hoping to have the basic paperwork in > place by the fall. So, comments are needed as soon as possible, since > each step takes longer than we'll want or expect. I also believe that SIG groups should have the same benefits (and representative power) as chapters. --Bruce ___ gnhlug-org mailing list gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org
It's time to talk by-laws again...
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 standing at all. Organizations that might lend us their facilities may be hesitant to do this to a non-incorporated entity. Activists who donate generous amounts of their time, money and energy have no way to claim a tax advantage for it, instead giving money to Uncle Sam he'd be glad to subsidize GNHLUG with. Corporations are less willing to donate money and materials to a rag-tag group of Linux geeks, and might be more generous to a 401(k). By forming a non-profit, we can start to address these issues. It's no panacea, but it's a good first step. Bylaws and state registration as a non-profit are the first steps to becoming a nationally-recognized non-profit. "Hurt feelings show up when money's involved" may be true, but GNHLUG members are spending their own money out of pocket now for booths at tradeshows, handouts, CDs, etc. Formalizing what people are spending gives them a chance to document their donations to GNHLUG. It needs to be emphasized that GNHLUG should not change its behaviors. Meetings should continue to be open to all at no cost. Those who attend are welcomed. Those many members who are interested in no greater participation than hanging out at meetings will see no change. However, those of us who would like to be able to use the foundation and network of GNHLUG as an infrastructure to do good deeds require that we have a little more formality, and we'll need to carry the burden of maintaining that paperwork. 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, responsibilities, checks and balances. Many of the terms below need to be more formally defined, but here are the broad outlines of a structure of GNHLUG governance I think would work. I'd appreciate everyone taking a few moments to review and point out weaknesses or let me know of problems, issues, items requiring more clarity, etc. I am not a parliamentarian, not a lawyer, and would appreciate feedback. The only dumb question is the one unasked until it's too late to fix. 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 count of the group to an odd number. 3. Council members elect a chair to run the meetings and act as GNHLUG within specified limits between meetings, a secretary to record meetings, discussions and decisions, and a treasurer to maintain and account for whatever funds we decide to work with. 4. All chapters can recall their representative. Besides regular elections, we'll need a recall mechanism. 5. A sufficiently large group can recall an at-large member. 6. The council can require another member to step down, under some clear circumstances. I'm not sure what this should entail, but just as we have the ability to have an elected member removed, I think there ought to be an equivalent "nuclear option" to be used only under the most serious of conditions to ban a member. This is a awful step, against Open principles and perhaps inappropriate. Are there conditions under which you can imagine this need? Feedback and horror stories sought. 7. Membership is open to the public. Representation should be available to everyone, but we may want to more clearly limit what would qualify as a "voting member." Ideas on this sticky point very much welcomed. I've posted this to the -org list for preliminary feedback. Based on that, I'd like to open the discussion to the -discuss list, then draft paperwork to get this done. I'm hoping to have the basic paperwork in place by the fall. So, comments are needed as soon as possible, since each step takes longer than we'll want or expect. Ted Roche Ted Roche & Associates, LLC http://www.tedroche.com ___ gnhlug-org mailing list gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org
