Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply
In message 9DB876C170EF4365AC0C6C9968C69C37@d3hkh9x94, Dilwyn Jones dil...@evans1511.fsnet.co.uk writes 16th 17th April. The Quanta website has not been updated since July of last year and my understanding is that there is little chance of it being updated in the near future. Ah - a weekend *totally* full for me with Bach St John Passion (8-(# Another AGM missed. Draw your own conclusions for the reason for this from Dilwyn's yesterday email about the lack of updating to the news items, I thought I read here quite recently that someone had worked out the logon and *was* updating it. Tony That was John Sadler saying he'd managed to recover the Scottish QL users group (SQLUG) website and nothing to do with the Quanta one. You've seen Geoff's email about the website earlier on tonight. A little bit more on this... Quanta website is a source of frustration to me and I think to all of us. The various faults and incompatibilities have caused too much wasted time, too much time worrying about the SYSTEM at the expense of CONTENT. The faults meant it has been impossible to update some things like the News since the last item you see on the site, for example. It's a free CMS, and in my experience it's not been very pleasant trying to edit a site with it. Over my broadband, the editor is slow and clunky. Various facilities either don't work at all when I try them, or fail to work in various contexts. I get endless error messages. Pages show up differently on Internet Explorer and on Firefox (not tried other browsers). I have no idea if this is due to my own system here, the CMS itself, or the problems with the servers it runs on. Just look at the homepage of www.quanta.org.uk on the two browsers mentioned to see what I mean. This is an example of things I have moaned about in emails to Keith and Dan (until I'm sure they are fed up of me), which have proved difficult, or impossible, or very time consuming to fix. The webmasters will be at Quanta AGM in April (just spoken to Keith now). So if you are concerned about Quanta's website, go there to ask questions and get answers. I hope that they will be able to do a session on the website at some point over the weekend to explain the situation. Of course, the situation gives the impression that as far as members are concerned the website is just out of date. This is not inactivity or laziness on the part of the committee but a huge and endless struggle just to get the basic CMS working at all. Dan and Keith are people who have worked with IT for a living, so it's not a case of nobody knowing what they're doing either. However, the website situation is unacceptable as it stands in my view and rapid progress must be seen to happen now. The good news is that while I was abroad recently a committee meeting was held which took major decisions to move forward to a costlier managed service selected, which should free everyone up to focus on CONTENT, provided it works better than the free service used until now. However, the failure to explain all this publicly and the fact it went on for a long time without explanation does give the impression of negligence in updating the website, whereas the truth is that the whole sorry situation is actually down to the CMS not working as it should on the free server spaces used, making it impossible to provide a decent website while that system is in use. Too long was spent trying to get a free service working, so hopefully the move to a paid for service will improve the situation. Another matter is that I have resigned as Quanta Librarian today. I was trying to do too many things - News, Helpline, Library and occasionally website pages (when the CMS last worked properly). The rush to get things in to meet the deadline for the current issue before I went abroad (sorry, I rather monopolised the issue with my ramblings) and the subsequent decision to produce another issue with deadline 5th March convinced me the time was right to find someone with new ideas to the Quanta Library properly and give it the time and attention it deserves. The Library is in need of modernising, especially as it is still intended that in time it will go online for members, which I haven't the time to do. I'll remain as caretaker Librarian until the AGM when I can hopefully hand the master disks etc over. This email has NOT been issued or authorised by the Quanta committee and is only the personal views of one frustrated committee member, sent with the best of intentions and without intending any personal criticism of anyone concerned. Dilwyn Jones Hi Dilwyn, I can accept the feelings of frustrations. A CMS - Content Management System - can just tie people in to something that is then hard to maintain ... :-( In the meantime, it is very easy to simply put text information on to a web site, without a CMS. So, the question remains - why has it just been left so long? PS -
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply
Morning Dilwyn, However, the failure to explain all this publicly and the fact it went on for a long time without explanation does give the impression of negligence in updating the website, whereas the truth is that the whole sorry situation is actually down to the CMS not working as it should on the free server spaces used, making it impossible to provide a decent website while that system is in use. I sneaked a peek at the home page source code. Looks like Quanta are using TYP03 as the CMS (www.typ03.org) which is not one I've heard of in the past, but a qucik web search shows that some pretty big organisations use it - Thomas Cook, Unicef, Lidl etc - so it can't be a problem with the CMS per se. Maybe it's the people using it? Maybe the free hosting company can't cope with the load, who knows. The system itself seems pretty light on resources, so maybe the switch to a paid for host will help. My own website (http://qdosmsq.dunbar-it.co.uk) - or maybe I should call it George's web site as he is doing most of the updating at the moment (thanks George) - is run on a simple Wiki (www.Dokuwiki.org) which is useful and simple and works pretty well even when broadband is reduced to an 11 mbs (bits not bytes!) wireless connection! (Which is what I have to use at work!). However, I don't think that would be suitable for Quanta. I do think that CMS is the way to go with a enterprise web site these days, it takes far too long and is not really cost effective to be hand coding HTML - even with a WYSISWYG HTML editor - you need to be able to connect, edit, save and disconnect, not messing about with HTML and then trying to FTP the results to the right place etc etc. However, I've been on the site (using the above mentioned wifi link) and it's very responsive, quite fast - and it looks good. So, I'm rather concerned at the fact that you have problems with it when editing or updating - I'm loathe to believe that the free hosting is at fault, unless your bandwidth is throttled somehow and the editing process is hitting a limit? Not much help I know, just random thoughts mainly, and a bit of encouragement. Cheers, Norm. -- Norman Dunbar Dunbar IT Consultants Ltd Registered address: Thorpe House 61 Richardshaw Lane Pudsey West Yorkshire United Kingdom LS28 7EL Company Number: 05132767 ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply
Maybe it's the people using it? Maybe the free hosting company can't cope with the load, who knows. The system itself seems pretty light on resources, so maybe the switch to a paid for host will help. My own website (http://qdosmsq.dunbar-it.co.uk) - or maybe I should call it George's web site as he is doing most of the updating at the moment (thanks George) - is run on a simple Wiki (www.Dokuwiki.org) which is useful and simple and works pretty well even when broadband is reduced to an 11 mbs (bits not bytes!) wireless connection! (Which is what I have to use at work!). However, I don't think that would be suitable for Quanta. 11mbs?!? I'd give my right arm for a broadband that works that well. I've said in the past here I get just under 2mbs at best, or around 30kbs at times when it's kids on facebook time in this village. I do think that CMS is the way to go with a enterprise web site these days, it takes far too long and is not really cost effective to be hand coding HTML - even with a WYSISWYG HTML editor - you need to be able to connect, edit, save and disconnect, not messing about with HTML and then trying to FTP the results to the right place etc etc. Absolutely, I agree. I didn't want to name the CMS when I had my little rant in case of comebacks, but you did guess right. I use other CMS'es for the tanslation work etc with no problem whatsoever, even over this cr***y broadband :-) However, I've been on the site (using the above mentioned wifi link) and it's very responsive, quite fast - and it looks good. So, I'm rather concerned at the fact that you have problems with it when editing or updating - I'm loathe to believe that the free hosting is at fault, unless your bandwidth is throttled somehow and the editing process is hitting a limit? Probably the useless broadband around here. There are times when doing things online you type a character, wait a couple of seconds and then it appears. I don't usually give up on things too easily but the Quanta CMS has been quite frustrating for me personally. Technically, it probably ain't the CMS per se, but the entire experience of the entire system it's implemented on. I really don't know about that part of it and am happy to leave that to others who have designated responsibilities for that part of the system. I think it might be more of a case of which OS the servers were using, and which software utility support was in place to allow the CMS to function, but I don't concern myself too much with that, so you might be better asking Dan or Keith about it in case I give incorrect information about it. Not much help I know, just random thoughts mainly, and a bit of encouragement. Well, throwing random thoughts into a brainstorming session often generates good ideas. We've seen that on this list plenty of times in the past :-) Dilwyn Jones ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply
On 25 Feb 2011, at 08:37, Norman Dunbar wrote: Morning Dilwyn, However, the failure to explain all this publicly and the fact it went on for a long time without explanation does give the impression of negligence in updating the website, whereas the truth is that the whole sorry situation is actually down to the CMS not working as it should on the free server spaces used, making it impossible to provide a decent website while that system is in use. I sneaked a peek at the home page source code. Looks like Quanta are using TYP03 as the CMS (www.typ03.org) which is not one I've heard of in the past, but a qucik web search shows that some pretty big organisations use it - Thomas Cook, Unicef, Lidl etc - so it can't be a problem with the CMS per se. Maybe it's the people using it? Maybe the free hosting company can't cope with the load, who knows. The system itself seems pretty light on resources, so maybe the switch to a paid for host will help. My own website (http://qdosmsq.dunbar-it.co.uk) - or maybe I should call it George's web site as he is doing most of the updating at the moment (thanks George) - is run on a simple Wiki (www.Dokuwiki.org) which is useful and simple and works pretty well even when broadband is reduced to an 11 mbs (bits not bytes!) wireless connection! (Which is what I have to use at work!). However, I don't think that would be suitable for Quanta. It's a pity that it wouldn't be suitable for QUANTA. Even I find it pretty easy to alter. (Only one trap or vector left to create.) I do think that CMS is the way to go with a enterprise web site these days, it takes far too long and is not really cost effective to be hand coding HTML - even with a WYSISWYG HTML editor - you need to be able to connect, edit, save and disconnect, not messing about with HTML and then trying to FTP the results to the right place etc etc. However, I've been on the site (using the above mentioned wifi link) and it's very responsive, quite fast - and it looks good. So, I'm rather concerned at the fact that you have problems with it when editing or updating - I'm loathe to believe that the free hosting is at fault, unless your bandwidth is throttled somehow and the editing process is hitting a limit? Not much help I know, just random thoughts mainly, and a bit of encouragement. I recently had to move my tiny, rudimentary website from the free ukonline to 123-reg. I imagine that there are fewer and fewer freely hosted sites these days. The new host was very helpful when I failed initially to get the thing working. I look forward to the time when my site address will eventually appear on the QUANTA site which is quick and easy to follow - but a bit slow on the update. George ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 5:26 AM, gdgqler gdgq...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 Feb 2011, at 08:37, Norman Dunbar wrote: Morning Dilwyn, However, the failure to explain all this publicly and the fact it went on for a long time without explanation does give the impression of negligence in updating the website, whereas the truth is that the whole sorry situation is actually down to the CMS not working as it should on the free server spaces used, making it impossible to provide a decent website while that system is in use. I sneaked a peek at the home page source code. Looks like Quanta are using TYP03 as the CMS (www.typ03.org) which is not one I've heard of in the past, but a qucik web search shows that some pretty big organisations use it - Thomas Cook, Unicef, Lidl etc - so it can't be a problem with the CMS per se. Maybe it's the people using it? Maybe the free hosting company can't cope with the load, who knows. The system itself seems pretty light on resources, so maybe the switch to a paid for host will help. My own website (http://qdosmsq.dunbar-it.co.uk) - or maybe I should call it George's web site as he is doing most of the updating at the moment (thanks George) - is run on a simple Wiki (www.Dokuwiki.org) which is useful and simple and works pretty well even when broadband is reduced to an 11 mbs (bits not bytes!) wireless connection! (Which is what I have to use at work!). However, I don't think that would be suitable for Quanta. It's a pity that it wouldn't be suitable for QUANTA. Even I find it pretty easy to alter. (Only one trap or vector left to create.) I do think that CMS is the way to go with a enterprise web site these days, it takes far too long and is not really cost effective to be hand coding HTML - even with a WYSISWYG HTML editor - you need to be able to connect, edit, save and disconnect, not messing about with HTML and then trying to FTP the results to the right place etc etc. However, I've been on the site (using the above mentioned wifi link) and it's very responsive, quite fast - and it looks good. So, I'm rather concerned at the fact that you have problems with it when editing or updating - I'm loathe to believe that the free hosting is at fault, unless your bandwidth is throttled somehow and the editing process is hitting a limit? Not much help I know, just random thoughts mainly, and a bit of encouragement. I recently had to move my tiny, rudimentary website from the free ukonline to 123-reg. I imagine that there are fewer and fewer freely hosted sites these days. The new host was very helpful when I failed initially to get the thing working. I look forward to the time when my site address will eventually appear on the QUANTA site which is quick and easy to follow - but a bit slow on the update. I have my own web server, which is somewhat of a luxury for me :) I have used wordpress, and when my needs grew beyond it, I installed Drupal - which in the end I considered too heavy and which demanded too many resources from the server. When it has 2000+ simultaneous users, it gets a bit resource-intensive. For Quanta's needs, I would recommend either Wordpress, php-nuke or slashcode. All use a MySQL backend, all are free, open source, and all would be better than what is in use now. All also have many very flexible themes available... One thing I think would help Quanta is to acknowledge that the internet is a primary form of communication - I know this seems obvious and they could say we're doing it but, c'mon, really? :) Where's the Quanta forum? Where are the public areas and the members only areas within it? It's so easy to run a great forum if you have a captive membership. Look at qlforum.co.uk, which is run on free phpBB (which I have also hosted.) One trap with running a forum - which qlforum has fallen into... It is not necessary or desirable to have the first two or three entries be the rules and info about the forum. It's undesirable to have the rules on every page when you post. Show it nice when people sign up. Every decent forum has the same basic rules: treat people with respect, don't flame, come back more often! People know how to behave, and if they don't a quiet word to one side can happen, without telling everyone all the time what the rules are. I know y'all over there live in a Nanny State, but... don't! And it's still the only game in town, forum-wise. Another trap with forums: people use net-names and it's hard to keep track of who is really who. I would have a please use your real name rule on sign-up. I have privately received an offer to put up or shut up with regard to the Quanta website... *grins* I think I will put up, but have no desire to be on a committee, or converse with one. It'll be a month or two to find the membership fee (because making things is my primary goal)... but yes, I'll rejoin Quanta after all these years. :)
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply
-- From: Dave Park plasticu...@gmail.com Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 3:38 PM To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply One thing I think would help Quanta is to acknowledge that the internet is a primary form of communication - I know this seems obvious and they could say we're doing it but, c'mon, really? :) Where's the Quanta forum? Where are the public areas and the members only areas within it? Just one thing to comment on this. The survey that Quanta did some years ago showed that there were still many members who are black box users and had no desire for becoming internet users. When you consider that Quanta does have members in their 80's who are happy with the QL and at their age have no desire to learn another computer this is reasonable. Some years ago Tony Firshman and I helped a QL-er in his 80s with hardware and software problems. He had no desire to go over to a PC and felt that Tony had provided him with good computer facilities for the rest of his life. When we started out we did not know who he was, but discovered that he was the person that had brought a household name franchise company to the UK and had done his spreadsheets on a QL. I have always had a healthy respect for black box users. This means that Quanta always has to have some paper facilities if it wants to serve all its members. Although I agree with you that we should exploit the internet far more I think there is a resistance among Quanta members, even those who are subscribers to this list, to the internet replacing paper, Best Wishes, Geoff ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply
Dave Park wrote, on 25/Feb/11 15:38 | Feb25: snip I have my own web server, which is somewhat of a luxury for me :) I have used wordpress, and when my needs grew beyond it, I installed Drupal - which in the end I considered too heavy and which demanded too many resources from the server. When it has 2000+ simultaneous users, it gets a bit resource-intensive. Ah - that is the one I installed. I might pick your brains. As always the help files are useless. They filed at square one - Log in to your control panel but I can find absolutely nothing that says what or where that is! Tony -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:257/67) +44(0)1442-828255 t...@firshman.co.uk http://firshman.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 Skype: tonyfirshman TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply
One thing I think would help Quanta is to acknowledge that the internet is a primary form of communication - I know this seems obvious and they could say we're doing it but, c'mon, really? :) Where's the Quanta forum? Where are the public areas and the members only areas within it? Just one thing to comment on this. The survey that Quanta did some years ago showed that there were still many members who are black box users and had no desire for becoming internet users. When you consider that Quanta does have members in their 80's who are happy with the QL and at their age have no desire to learn another computer this is reasonable. I would agree to some extent with this. We have to recognise that there are both users out there as you describe, using original QLs and no wish to go much further, and we have to cater for those who progressed to newer QL systems and emulators too. The real issue, I guess, is to try to strike a suitable balance. I suppose it's inevitable we'll never satisfy everyone. In as far as Dave asks where is the Quanta Forum etc etc, I think we have to recognise that the website has not been Quanta's strongest asset for some time now. Recent committee decisions should (theoretically) see more progress on this front. Once the basics are in place - getting the CMS to work as we want it - we can then turn our attention to new features. While ideas are always welcome, given that past Quanta websites haven't done too well, let's get the fundamentals in place first. This means that Quanta always has to have some paper facilities if it wants to serve all its members. Although I agree with you that we should exploit the internet far more I think there is a resistance among Quanta members, even those who are subscribers to this list, to the internet replacing paper, Yep. Reading the entire mag is better on paper for me, but I also like to be able to search the PDFs for information too. I agree the paper option will have to be there, but would encourage people to try the PDF versions too. Dilwyn Jones ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply
This reply is to both previous emails... On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Dilwyn Jones dil...@evans1511.fsnet.co.ukwrote: One thing I think would help Quanta is to acknowledge that the internet is a primary form of communication - I know this seems obvious and they could say we're doing it but, c'mon, really? :) Where's the Quanta forum? Where are the public areas and the members only areas within it? Just one thing to comment on this. The survey that Quanta did some years ago showed that there were still many members who are black box users and had no desire for becoming internet users. When you consider that Quanta does have members in their 80's who are happy with the QL and at their age have no desire to learn another computer this is reasonable. I would agree to some extent with this. We have to recognise that there are both users out there as you describe, using original QLs and no wish to go much further, and we have to cater for those who progressed to newer QL systems and emulators too. Understood. However, there is a point when the reticence to do new things means you end up serving LCD... If you only serve the lowest common denominator, you orphan your users as the LCDs age out. I will be a black box user when my membrane arrives. I use an emulator for code-diddling (thanks Daniele!) and would probably be a QPC owner if I used Windows. Mixed bag. However, I'd never expect an organisation of which I was a member to limit what they offered to just suit my needs, as long as they never replaced those services that met my needs with twinkly services that don't. The real issue, I guess, is to try to strike a suitable balance. I suppose it's inevitable we'll never satisfy everyone. In as far as Dave asks where is the Quanta Forum etc etc, I think we have to recognise that the website has not been Quanta's strongest asset for some time now. Recent committee decisions should (theoretically) see more progress on this front. Once the basics are in place - getting the CMS to work as we want it - we can then turn our attention to new features. While ideas are always welcome, given that past Quanta websites haven't done too well, let's get the fundamentals in place first. I will give a very specific piece of advice to Quanta's web person(s): Don't decide what you want on the site and make headings for everything and plan it all out. Allow it to be organic. Allow popular pages to grow in the way the readers want them to. Allow little-visited pages to be relegated to sub-links or to die altogether. If you want to keep the info available, have a page cemetery. Just don't let it be managed by a committee. Allow it to respond to events more quickly than a meeting schedule. This means that Quanta always has to have some paper facilities if it wants to serve all its members. Although I agree with you that we should exploit the internet far more I think there is a resistance among Quanta members, even those who are subscribers to this list, to the internet replacing paper, Yep. Reading the entire mag is better on paper for me, but I also like to be able to search the PDFs for information too. I agree the paper option will have to be there, but would encourage people to try the PDF versions too. I personally would prefer PDF only, with an annual mailed CD archive of all issues to this point in December. Others would prefer the paper mag, or emailed copies... I find it unfortunate that Quanta has stuck by their price point and doesn't say some thing like... £12 for membership, worldwide, with emailed magazine. £16 basic + paper mag in EU £20 basic + paper mag, rest of world Also, looking at the life stage of Quanta and its members, maybe it's time to offer £100 lifetime memberships... Count on peoples' optimism ;) Also, they should maybe email a URL for the PDF and have people fetch it from the web server, so they can track how many *readers* they actually have. I'm sure a few people just take the magazine for old time's sake. Dave ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply
Geoff Wicks wrote, on 24/Feb/11 13:56 | Feb24: Likewise, if anyone from abroad would like us to help find a place to stay for the weekend, please do get in touch. Manchester airport is not too far away, for example. Sarah has recommended a private hotel in the past and I have not heard any criticisms of it. The nearest hotel to the venue, Premier Inn Trafford South, still had vacancies last weekend. The disadvantage is that you will be using the same hotel as the devil himself, so don't forget your garlic and crucifix, Hrmm - what weekend? http://www.quanta.org.uk/ has nothing. I thought the website had been updated recently. The only Forthcoming Events is the Austrian show *last* year! Tony -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:257/67) +44(0)1442-828255 t...@firshman.co.uk http://firshman.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 Skype: tonyfirshman TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply
-- From: Tony Firshman t...@firshman.co.uk Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 2:03 PM To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply Geoff Wicks wrote, on 24/Feb/11 13:56 | Feb24: Likewise, if anyone from abroad would like us to help find a place to stay for the weekend, please do get in touch. Manchester airport is not too far away, for example. Sarah has recommended a private hotel in the past and I have not heard any criticisms of it. The nearest hotel to the venue, Premier Inn Trafford South, still had vacancies last weekend. The disadvantage is that you will be using the same hotel as the devil himself, so don't forget your garlic and crucifix, Hrmm - what weekend? http://www.quanta.org.uk/ has nothing. I thought the website had been updated recently. The only Forthcoming Events is the Austrian show *last* year! 16th 17th April. The Quanta website has not been updated since July of last year and my understanding is that there is little chance of it being updated in the near future. Draw your own conclusions for the reason for this from Dilwyn's yesterday email about the lack of updating to the news items, Best Wishes, Geoff ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply
Geoff Wicks wrote, on 24/Feb/11 18:43 | Feb24: -- From: Tony Firshman t...@firshman.co.uk Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 2:03 PM To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply Geoff Wicks wrote, on 24/Feb/11 13:56 | Feb24: Likewise, if anyone from abroad would like us to help find a place to stay for the weekend, please do get in touch. Manchester airport is not too far away, for example. Sarah has recommended a private hotel in the past and I have not heard any criticisms of it. The nearest hotel to the venue, Premier Inn Trafford South, still had vacancies last weekend. The disadvantage is that you will be using the same hotel as the devil himself, so don't forget your garlic and crucifix, Hrmm - what weekend? http://www.quanta.org.uk/ has nothing. I thought the website had been updated recently. The only Forthcoming Events is the Austrian show *last* year! 16th 17th April. The Quanta website has not been updated since July of last year and my understanding is that there is little chance of it being updated in the near future. Ah - a weekend *totally* full for me with Bach St John Passion (8-(# Another AGM missed. Draw your own conclusions for the reason for this from Dilwyn's yesterday email about the lack of updating to the news items, I thought I read here quite recently that someone had worked out the logon and *was* updating it. Tony -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:257/67) +44(0)1442-828255 t...@firshman.co.uk http://firshman.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 Skype: tonyfirshman TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply
-- From: Dave Park plasticu...@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 7:03 PM To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Tony Firshman t...@firshman.co.uk wrote: Geoff Wicks wrote, on 24/Feb/11 18:43 | Feb24: Hrmm - what weekend? http://www.quanta.org.uk/ has nothing. I thought the website had been updated recently. The only Forthcoming Events is the Austrian show *last* year! 16th 17th April. The Quanta website has not been updated since July of last year and my understanding is that there is little chance of it being updated in the near future. Ah - a weekend *totally* full for me with Bach St John Passion (8-(# Another AGM missed. Draw your own conclusions for the reason for this from Dilwyn's yesterday email about the lack of updating to the news items, I thought I read here quite recently that someone had worked out the logon and *was* updating it. This is obviously a problem. Yes there is a problem and it's not because people are too lazy to update the site. In fact almost all the work has been done to prepare the content for the restricted members' area. At QL Today we have known about the problem for several months, but had to keep silent to give Quanta the time to solve it. As there is no sign of a solution I decided to break the silence in the forthcoming issue. The great tragedy is that if Quanta had been open about the problem they would probably have found a lot of sympathy and people willing to help, Best Wishes, Geoff ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply
Geoff Wicks wrote, on 24/Feb/11 20:35 | Feb24: -- From: Dave Park plasticu...@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 7:03 PM To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Tony Firshman t...@firshman.co.uk wrote: Geoff Wicks wrote, on 24/Feb/11 18:43 | Feb24: Hrmm - what weekend? http://www.quanta.org.uk/ has nothing. I thought the website had been updated recently. The only Forthcoming Events is the Austrian show *last* year! 16th 17th April. The Quanta website has not been updated since July of last year and my understanding is that there is little chance of it being updated in the near future. Ah - a weekend *totally* full for me with Bach St John Passion (8-(# Another AGM missed. Draw your own conclusions for the reason for this from Dilwyn's yesterday email about the lack of updating to the news items, I thought I read here quite recently that someone had worked out the logon and *was* updating it. This is obviously a problem. Yes there is a problem and it's not because people are too lazy to update the site. In fact almost all the work has been done to prepare the content for the restricted members' area. At QL Today we have known about the problem for several months, but had to keep silent to give Quanta the time to solve it. As there is no sign of a solution I decided to break the silence in the forthcoming issue. The great tragedy is that if Quanta had been open about the problem they would probably have found a lot of sympathy and people willing to help, That is very cryptic. I look forward to reading QLT. Tony -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:257/67) +44(0)1442-828255 t...@firshman.co.uk http://firshman.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 Skype: tonyfirshman TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply
16th 17th April. The Quanta website has not been updated since July of last year and my understanding is that there is little chance of it being updated in the near future. Ah - a weekend *totally* full for me with Bach St John Passion (8-(# Another AGM missed. Draw your own conclusions for the reason for this from Dilwyn's yesterday email about the lack of updating to the news items, I thought I read here quite recently that someone had worked out the logon and *was* updating it. Tony That was John Sadler saying he'd managed to recover the Scottish QL users group (SQLUG) website and nothing to do with the Quanta one. You've seen Geoff's email about the website earlier on tonight. A little bit more on this... Quanta website is a source of frustration to me and I think to all of us. The various faults and incompatibilities have caused too much wasted time, too much time worrying about the SYSTEM at the expense of CONTENT. The faults meant it has been impossible to update some things like the News since the last item you see on the site, for example. It's a free CMS, and in my experience it's not been very pleasant trying to edit a site with it. Over my broadband, the editor is slow and clunky. Various facilities either don't work at all when I try them, or fail to work in various contexts. I get endless error messages. Pages show up differently on Internet Explorer and on Firefox (not tried other browsers). I have no idea if this is due to my own system here, the CMS itself, or the problems with the servers it runs on. Just look at the homepage of www.quanta.org.uk on the two browsers mentioned to see what I mean. This is an example of things I have moaned about in emails to Keith and Dan (until I'm sure they are fed up of me), which have proved difficult, or impossible, or very time consuming to fix. The webmasters will be at Quanta AGM in April (just spoken to Keith now). So if you are concerned about Quanta's website, go there to ask questions and get answers. I hope that they will be able to do a session on the website at some point over the weekend to explain the situation. Of course, the situation gives the impression that as far as members are concerned the website is just out of date. This is not inactivity or laziness on the part of the committee but a huge and endless struggle just to get the basic CMS working at all. Dan and Keith are people who have worked with IT for a living, so it's not a case of nobody knowing what they're doing either. However, the website situation is unacceptable as it stands in my view and rapid progress must be seen to happen now. The good news is that while I was abroad recently a committee meeting was held which took major decisions to move forward to a costlier managed service selected, which should free everyone up to focus on CONTENT, provided it works better than the free service used until now. However, the failure to explain all this publicly and the fact it went on for a long time without explanation does give the impression of negligence in updating the website, whereas the truth is that the whole sorry situation is actually down to the CMS not working as it should on the free server spaces used, making it impossible to provide a decent website while that system is in use. Too long was spent trying to get a free service working, so hopefully the move to a paid for service will improve the situation. Another matter is that I have resigned as Quanta Librarian today. I was trying to do too many things - News, Helpline, Library and occasionally website pages (when the CMS last worked properly). The rush to get things in to meet the deadline for the current issue before I went abroad (sorry, I rather monopolised the issue with my ramblings) and the subsequent decision to produce another issue with deadline 5th March convinced me the time was right to find someone with new ideas to run the Quanta Library properly and give it the time and attention it deserves. The Library is in need of modernising, especially as it is still intended that in time it will go online for members, which I haven't the time to do. I'll remain as caretaker Librarian until the AGM when I can hopefully hand the master disks etc over. This email has NOT been issued or authorised by the Quanta committee and is only the personal views of one frustrated committee member, sent with the best of intentions and without intending any personal criticism of anyone concerned. Dilwyn Jones ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply
Thanks for the offer to help with rewriting the constitution - we have the beginnings of a potential constitution redrafting team, Best wishes, Geoff For members, there will be an open forum to discuss the Quanta constitution on the sunday morning of the Workshop/AGM in April (16th/17th) in Manchester. Members who can't attend are welcome to send thoughts to Sarah (chairman) or Alison (secretary) to include in the discussion. Hopefully, by discussing it then it will allow plenty of time to plan and reshape the constitution by the 2012 AGM. And if anyone would like a slot to do a talk or presentation at this event, please do get in touch with me so that we can plan some talks/demos on the Saturday. One or two have already indicated a willingness to do a session if they can attend, but the more the merrier! And there'll be a Quanta dinner to attend and talk about all things QL on Saturday evening too - contact Likewise, if anyone from abroad would like us to help find a place to stay for the weekend, please do get in touch. Manchester airport is not too far away, for example. Dilwyn Jones ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply
-- From: Malcolm Cadman q...@mcad.demon.co.uk Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 9:46 PM To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply Hi Geoff, I agree with most of what you say, apart from keeping the Term of Office feature. Better to abandon that, all together, and just have all Board/Committee members standing down every Year; and then putting themselves forward again for a following Year (or not if they so choose). This way you keep your good Board/Committee members. The Treasurer Post is always a difficult one to fill. When you find a good one, then keep them ... :-) I would not object to being involved in drafting a new/revised Constitution. In principle I can find a lot of good sense in the six year rule, but in practice I have my doubts about its suitability for Quanta in its present size and condition. Almost of the people I have spoken to who were active on the committee 5 - 10 years ago refer to the first few years of the last decade being the ultimate low period in Quanta. We had a chairman who no longer believed in either Quanta or the QL, but who, for some strange reason, clung onto office. Quanta was just allowed to drift aimlessly. I have had many conversations with John Mason about this period and he was genuinely distressed by the deterioration that occurred in Quanta. He was determined to restore Quanta to its former glories. I don't agree with the way he tried to do it, but I know that his motives were pure. When I was on the Works Council a lot of these ideas were bounced around on our training courses. There is a need to maintain continuity but also a need to keep an organisation fresh. We need to separate two different things. One is the maximum term of office i.e. the six year rule, the other is the normal term of office. In my personal opinion three years is too long, one year is too short. Two years is about right. Thanks for the offer to help with rewriting the constitution - we have the beginnings of a potential constitution redrafting team, Best wishes, Geoff ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply
On 7 Feb 2011, at 19:52, Geoff Wicks wrote: Perhaps the entire constitution of Quanta needs altering. Now where did I hear that recently ;-) I once was involved in rewriting an entire constitution. When Works Council Law was changed in the Netherlands all Works Councils had to rewrite their constitutions. We had a choice of either doing it ourselves or employing an outside consultant costing hundreds of pounds. As I was the only member of the council with the relevant skills and experience I was given the job, but at the same time the council appointed another member to be my mentor to check everything I did. In practice I found I could still keep much of the old constitution in the new one and I suspect that would be much the same in Quanta. There were model constitutions published and I also had to keep checking the new Works Council Law. In short in was a bit like pick 'n' mix. Basically Quanta would have to do is: 1: Look through the old constitution and get a rough idea of what you would like to leave in and what you would like to leave out. Then have an extensive consultation period to determine the main details. Do not rush this - it is better to take your time than do a quick botched job. (The lesson of the 2005 amendments.) 2: More than one person should be involved in the drafting. It is a bit like a superbasic program. Few of us could write a superbasic program that is totally bug free and that also applies to constitutions. Even better if the draft constitution is proofread by a person or persons not involved in the drafting. 3: Bear in mind that during the drafting matters could arise that need further consultation or decision by the committee or members. When writing the works council constitution I had to consult the council on whether we should have a personal or list voting system and had to prepare a paper on the merits and demerits of each. For example in Quanta to maintain continuity the officers currently have a three year period of office. You could have chosen instead for all committee members to serve 2 years with one half of the committee to face re-election in any one year. This is not a decision for the drafters, but the committee and/or members. 4: Publish the draft constitution well in advance to allow time for possible amendments, comments or objections. A very time consuming process, but Quanta may find it worthwhile, When I was involved in producing a new constitution we got an expert to produce one off the shelf. This was, in the main, OK but it had what I thought was a fatal flaw. It required the Committee members to retire after a period of, I think, 3 years and had to wait 1 year before they could be re-elected. I got that altered so that Committee members could stay on indefinitely, subject, of course, to being re-elected every 3 years. My reason for getting that alteration was that I thought it difficult enough to get anyone to do the voluntary work of being a Committee member. I reckon Quanta badly needs that change in the constitution. George ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply
In message 8ce6ad4b-05c2-47a7-a160-e652833bb...@gmail.com, gdgqler gdgq...@gmail.com writes On 6 Feb 2011, at 21:07, Malcolm Cadman wrote: In message 4d45ec4b.7030...@sbcglobal.net, Timothy Swenson swenso...@sbcglobal.net writes On 1/30/2011 10:48 AM, Malcolm Cadman wrote: Were Officers to be elected, directly, at an AGM, it would open the door to someone incompetent to get voted in, or some collusion to take place. Interesting, as California State code for Non-profits pretty much specifies that members vote on officers and the board. It is only the members that can make any changes to the By-laws. I'm guessing that the AGM is the same as a General Member Meeting. Most non-profits have one every year for elections. In one non-profit I'm involved with, rarely does a regular member attend these meetings and only the Board members show up (even with the required notification sent out). Hi Tim, I think that we are talking about the same thing. The full membership attends a General Meeting of Members ... in the UK called an Annual General Meeting (AGM), as it is held once a Year. The general membership are there to see the people being put forward for the Committee (Board). However, suppose at the AGM a member puts themselves forward for the Treasurer ... and all the other members present then vote for that person. Yet, the member voted in has not demonstrated any competence for the Position . see the problem? The Committee (Board) cannot then function. Usually you can't put forward new proposals at an AGM. Only business listed in the Notice of the Meeting can be transacted. However, the problem of ordinary members proposing and electing non competent people is real. When I have had anything to do with such situations I have seen to it that the Committee or Board or whatever you like to call it put forward what they consider competent candidates. But allowing members to propose other candidates if they want. If that fails, it is also usual to have the power of co-option so that the right person can be appointed later. I would have thought that elections are normally to the Committee or Board and not to a post within the Committee. In other words the members would not normally elect a Treasurer. Perhaps the entire constitution of Quanta needs altering. George Hi George, Yes ... I agree, AGM elections are meant to be to the Board/Committee; and not a particular Post. If the QUANTA Constitution is weak in this area, then a re-write would be the better way to go. The Charity Commission web site, has some good examples to base upon. -- Malcolm Cadman ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply
In message 7CEE673EF74B4720829CBA46D820817B@geoffbqm5ccx41, Geoff Wicks gtwi...@btinternet.com writes -- From: gdgqler gdgq...@gmail.com Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 9:53 AM To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply Perhaps the entire constitution of Quanta needs altering. Now where did I hear that recently ;-) I once was involved in rewriting an entire constitution. When Works Council Law was changed in the Netherlands all Works Councils had to rewrite their constitutions. We had a choice of either doing it ourselves or employing an outside consultant costing hundreds of pounds. As I was the only member of the council with the relevant skills and experience I was given the job, but at the same time the council appointed another member to be my mentor to check everything I did. In practice I found I could still keep much of the old constitution in the new one and I suspect that would be much the same in Quanta. There were model constitutions published and I also had to keep checking the new Works Council Law. In short in was a bit like pick 'n' mix. Basically Quanta would have to do is: 1: Look through the old constitution and get a rough idea of what you would like to leave in and what you would like to leave out. Then have an extensive consultation period to determine the main details. Do not rush this - it is better to take your time than do a quick botched job. (The lesson of the 2005 amendments.) 2: More than one person should be involved in the drafting. It is a bit like a superbasic program. Few of us could write a superbasic program that is totally bug free and that also applies to constitutions. Even better if the draft constitution is proofread by a person or persons not involved in the drafting. 3: Bear in mind that during the drafting matters could arise that need further consultation or decision by the committee or members. When writing the works council constitution I had to consult the council on whether we should have a personal or list voting system and had to prepare a paper on the merits and demerits of each. For example in Quanta to maintain continuity the officers currently have a three year period of office. You could have chosen instead for all committee members to serve 2 years with one half of the committee to face re-election in any one year. This is not a decision for the drafters, but the committee and/or members. 4: Publish the draft constitution well in advance to allow time for possible amendments, comments or objections. A very time consuming process, but Quanta may find it worthwhile, Best Wishes, Geoff Hi Geoff, I agree with most of what you say, apart from keeping the Term of Office feature. Better to abandon that, all together, and just have all Board/Committee members standing down every Year; and then putting themselves forward again for a following Year (or not if they so choose). This way you keep your good Board/Committee members. The Treasurer Post is always a difficult one to fill. When you find a good one, then keep them ... :-) I would not object to being involved in drafting a new/revised Constitution. -- Malcolm Cadman ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply
In message a1ebf150-979b-4e65-b8c2-ca4c97611...@gmail.com, gdgqler gdgq...@gmail.com writes On 7 Feb 2011, at 19:52, Geoff Wicks wrote: Perhaps the entire constitution of Quanta needs altering. Now where did I hear that recently ;-) I once was involved in rewriting an entire constitution. When Works Council Law was changed in the Netherlands all Works Councils had to rewrite their constitutions. We had a choice of either doing it ourselves or employing an outside consultant costing hundreds of pounds. As I was the only member of the council with the relevant skills and experience I was given the job, but at the same time the council appointed another member to be my mentor to check everything I did. In practice I found I could still keep much of the old constitution in the new one and I suspect that would be much the same in Quanta. There were model constitutions published and I also had to keep checking the new Works Council Law. In short in was a bit like pick 'n' mix. Basically Quanta would have to do is: 1: Look through the old constitution and get a rough idea of what you would like to leave in and what you would like to leave out. Then have an extensive consultation period to determine the main details. Do not rush this - it is better to take your time than do a quick botched job. (The lesson of the 2005 amendments.) 2: More than one person should be involved in the drafting. It is a bit like a superbasic program. Few of us could write a superbasic program that is totally bug free and that also applies to constitutions. Even better if the draft constitution is proofread by a person or persons not involved in the drafting. 3: Bear in mind that during the drafting matters could arise that need further consultation or decision by the committee or members. When writing the works council constitution I had to consult the council on whether we should have a personal or list voting system and prepare a paper on the merits and demerits of each. For example in Quanta to maintain continuity the officers currently have a three year period of office. You could have chosen instead for all committee members to serve 2 years with one half of the committee to face re-election in any one year. This is not a decision for the drafters, but the committee and/or members. 4: Publish the draft constitution well in advance to allow time for possible amendments, comments or objections. A very time consuming process, but Quanta may find it worthwhile, When I was involved in producing a new constitution we got an expert to produce one off the shelf. This was, in the main, OK but it had what I thought was a fatal flaw. It required the Committee members to retire after a period of, I think, 3 years and had to wait 1 year before they could be re-elected. I got that altered so that Committee members could stay on indefinitely, subject, of course, to being re-elected every 3 years. My reason for getting that alteration was that I thought it difficult enough to get anyone to do the voluntary work of being a Committee member. I reckon Quanta badly needs that change in the constitution. George Hi George, I agree with you, again ... :-) Good Board/Committee members are very hard to find. So, when you have them, it is best to keep them. As I commented in another email, it is best to have no Time limits. With all Board/Committee members standing down every Year, and then standing again (or not if they so choose). My community group will be holding its AGM, shortly, and this is what we do. This will be out eleventh Year of operation, with a budget of over £100K a Year. Being a Company Not for Profit and Limited by Guarantee, as well as a Registered Charity. -- Malcolm Cadman ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Malcolm Cadman q...@mcad.demon.co.uk wrote: In message a1ebf150-979b-4e65-b8c2-ca4c97611...@gmail.com, gdgqler gdgq...@gmail.com writes On 7 Feb 2011, at 19:52, Geoff Wicks wrote: Perhaps the entire constitution of Quanta needs altering. Now where did I hear that recently ;-) I once was involved in rewriting an entire constitution. When Works Council Law was changed in the Netherlands all Works Councils had to rewrite their constitutions. We had a choice of either doing it ourselves or employing an outside consultant costing hundreds of pounds. As I was the only member of the council with the relevant skills and experience I was given the job, but at the same time the council appointed another member to be my mentor to check everything I did. In practice I found I could still keep much of the old constitution in the new one and I suspect that would be much the same in Quanta. There were model constitutions published and I also had to keep checking the new Works Council Law. In short in was a bit like pick 'n' mix. Basically Quanta would have to do is: 1: Look through the old constitution and get a rough idea of what you would like to leave in and what you would like to leave out. Then have an extensive consultation period to determine the main details. Do not rush this - it is better to take your time than do a quick botched job. (The lesson of the 2005 amendments.) 2: More than one person should be involved in the drafting. It is a bit like a superbasic program. Few of us could write a superbasic program that is totally bug free and that also applies to constitutions. Even better if the draft constitution is proofread by a person or persons not involved in the drafting. 3: Bear in mind that during the drafting matters could arise that need further consultation or decision by the committee or members. When writing the works council constitution I had to consult the council on whether we should have a personal or list voting system and prepare a paper on the merits and demerits of each. For example in Quanta to maintain continuity the officers currently have a three year period of office. You could have chosen instead for all committee members to serve 2 years with one half of the committee to face re-election in any one year. This is not a decision for the drafters, but the committee and/or members. 4: Publish the draft constitution well in advance to allow time for possible amendments, comments or objections. A very time consuming process, but Quanta may find it worthwhile, When I was involved in producing a new constitution we got an expert to produce one off the shelf. This was, in the main, OK but it had what I thought was a fatal flaw. It required the Committee members to retire after a period of, I think, 3 years and had to wait 1 year before they could be re-elected. I got that altered so that Committee members could stay on indefinitely, subject, of course, to being re-elected every 3 years. My reason for getting that alteration was that I thought it difficult enough to get anyone to do the voluntary work of being a Committee member. I reckon Quanta badly needs that change in the constitution. George Hi George, I agree with you, again ... :-) Good Board/Committee members are very hard to find. So, when you have them, it is best to keep them. As I commented in another email, it is best to have no Time limits. With all Board/Committee members standing down every Year, and then standing again (or not if they so choose). My community group will be holding its AGM, shortly, and this is what we do. This will be out eleventh Year of operation, with a budget of over £100K a Year. Being a Company Not for Profit and Limited by Guarantee, as well as a Registered Charity. -- Malcolm Cadman ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm One organization of which I am a member does not have term limits, but handles it in an interesting way. The only reason for a term limit is to prevent people holding an office indefinitely due to power issues. This organization resolves it by allowing a vote FOR someone and a vote AGAINST someone. FOR votes add one, and AGAINST votes deduct one. This way, if an incumbent goes on long enough to start being closely opposed, dissatisfaction usually focuses the negative votes on them. The downside is if you have three candidates: two popular opposing candidates and a third minor player, the two groups of supporters invalidate the others' votes and the third entrant gets elected. Another (to me, better) way to resolve the issue is to allow someone to be elected past a term limit if they are unopposed. However, if they are opposed, that individual gets a go. Having only half the positions replaced each election allows some continuity. IMHO. Dave
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply
On 6 Feb 2011, at 21:07, Malcolm Cadman wrote: In message 4d45ec4b.7030...@sbcglobal.net, Timothy Swenson swenso...@sbcglobal.net writes On 1/30/2011 10:48 AM, Malcolm Cadman wrote: Were Officers to be elected, directly, at an AGM, it would open the door to someone incompetent to get voted in, or some collusion to take place. Interesting, as California State code for Non-profits pretty much specifies that members vote on officers and the board. It is only the members that can make any changes to the By-laws. I'm guessing that the AGM is the same as a General Member Meeting. Most non-profits have one every year for elections. In one non-profit I'm involved with, rarely does a regular member attend these meetings and only the Board members show up (even with the required notification sent out). Hi Tim, I think that we are talking about the same thing. The full membership attends a General Meeting of Members ... in the UK called an Annual General Meeting (AGM), as it is held once a Year. The general membership are there to see the people being put forward for the Committee (Board). However, suppose at the AGM a member puts themselves forward for the Treasurer ... and all the other members present then vote for that person. Yet, the member voted in has not demonstrated any competence for the Position . see the problem? The Committee (Board) cannot then function. Usually you can't put forward new proposals at an AGM. Only business listed in the Notice of the Meeting can be transacted. However, the problem of ordinary members proposing and electing non competent people is real. When I have had anything to do with such situations I have seen to it that the Committee or Board or whatever you like to call it put forward what they consider competent candidates. But allowing members to propose other candidates if they want. If that fails, it is also usual to have the power of co-option so that the right person can be appointed later. I would have thought that elections are normally to the Committee or Board and not to a post within the Committee. In other words the members would not normally elect a Treasurer. Perhaps the entire constitution of Quanta needs altering. George ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply
-- From: gdgqler gdgq...@gmail.com Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 9:53 AM To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply Perhaps the entire constitution of Quanta needs altering. Now where did I hear that recently ;-) I once was involved in rewriting an entire constitution. When Works Council Law was changed in the Netherlands all Works Councils had to rewrite their constitutions. We had a choice of either doing it ourselves or employing an outside consultant costing hundreds of pounds. As I was the only member of the council with the relevant skills and experience I was given the job, but at the same time the council appointed another member to be my mentor to check everything I did. In practice I found I could still keep much of the old constitution in the new one and I suspect that would be much the same in Quanta. There were model constitutions published and I also had to keep checking the new Works Council Law. In short in was a bit like pick 'n' mix. Basically Quanta would have to do is: 1: Look through the old constitution and get a rough idea of what you would like to leave in and what you would like to leave out. Then have an extensive consultation period to determine the main details. Do not rush this - it is better to take your time than do a quick botched job. (The lesson of the 2005 amendments.) 2: More than one person should be involved in the drafting. It is a bit like a superbasic program. Few of us could write a superbasic program that is totally bug free and that also applies to constitutions. Even better if the draft constitution is proofread by a person or persons not involved in the drafting. 3: Bear in mind that during the drafting matters could arise that need further consultation or decision by the committee or members. When writing the works council constitution I had to consult the council on whether we should have a personal or list voting system and had to prepare a paper on the merits and demerits of each. For example in Quanta to maintain continuity the officers currently have a three year period of office. You could have chosen instead for all committee members to serve 2 years with one half of the committee to face re-election in any one year. This is not a decision for the drafters, but the committee and/or members. 4: Publish the draft constitution well in advance to allow time for possible amendments, comments or objections. A very time consuming process, but Quanta may find it worthwhile, Best Wishes, Geoff ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply
In message 4d45ec4b.7030...@sbcglobal.net, Timothy Swenson swenso...@sbcglobal.net writes On 1/30/2011 10:48 AM, Malcolm Cadman wrote: Were Officers to be elected, directly, at an AGM, it would open the door to someone incompetent to get voted in, or some collusion to take place. Interesting, as California State code for Non-profits pretty much specifies that members vote on officers and the board. It is only the members that can make any changes to the By-laws. I'm guessing that the AGM is the same as a General Member Meeting. Most non-profits have one every year for elections. In one non-profit I'm involved with, rarely does a regular member attend these meetings and only the Board members show up (even with the required notification sent out). Hi Tim, I think that we are talking about the same thing. The full membership attends a General Meeting of Members ... in the UK called an Annual General Meeting (AGM), as it is held once a Year. The general membership are there to see the people being put forward for the Committee (Board). However, suppose at the AGM a member puts themselves forward for the Treasurer ... and all the other members present then vote for that person. Yet, the member voted in has not demonstrated any competence for the Position . see the problem? The Committee (Board) cannot then function. -- Malcolm Cadman ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply - from the Treasurer
On 29 Jan 2011, at 20:24, Geoff Wicks wrote: Can a person who has been appointed treasurer of Quanta in a breach of the constitution - a legally binding document - legally sign cheques under British law? If the bank accepts the signature it doesn't matter whether it is legally binding or not. Many years ago Standard Life and Scottish Widows jointly owned a computer. Every year an AGM was held. There were just three people there and I was one. There were supposed to be directors and shareholders. The Scottish Widows representative was a stickler for accuracy and protocol. He was filled to the brim with chagrin when, one year, it was pointed out that all the meetings to date were invalid because of some legal technicality such as shareholders not being present or having sent proxies. The moral is that the legal situation does not matter at all unless someone complains. George ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply
Hi Geoff, I see you have been answered already with several legally based opinions. The problem with your question is that it is not factually valid. It states that there definitely has been a breach of the constitution. To establish that as a fact rather than opinion you will need to get a judicial review. Do you think that this will be a good use of Quanta's time and money? As to the now hypothetical cheque, as the club rules regarding the status of the individual had been interpreted that the individual was correctly appointed, if the cheque was signed by the individual in the honest belief that they had the right to do so and the cheque was honoured by the club in the honest belief that the individual had the right to sign the cheque and there was no evidence of fraud in the criminal sense in the use of the cheque then the simple answer is yes and should any redress be needed should there have been an honest mis-interpretation of rules this should be sought within the rules of the club in the first instance. Duncan -Original Message- From: Geoff Wicks gtwi...@btinternet.com To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com Sent: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 20:24 Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply - from the Treasurer -- From: matras...@aol.com Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 7:49 PM To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply - from the Treasurer Hi Geoff, Suggest you look up transactional analysis in google especially critical parent and willful child roles. In law in the UK there is a differentiation between criminal and civil law. Any perceived violations of Quanta's constitution will fall in to civil law, unless you are suggesting fraud according to the criminal definition of this. If not then if there is a legal case to be made because of some injury, someone, an individual or group of individuals, needs to sue. It seems on this list at the moment only you feel there is a case to be made. The question then is are you going to sue Quanta. If not then what is your purpose. Answer a simple question, but the answer has to be not as a layman would answer but as a lawyer would answer: Can a person who has been appointed treasurer of Quanta in a breach of the constitution - a legally binding document - legally sign cheques under British law? Best Wishes, Geoff _ ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply
-- From: Rich Mellor r...@rwapservices.co.uk Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 8:45 PM To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply On 29/01/2011 12:54, Geoff Wicks wrote: -- From: Rich Mellor r...@rwapservices.co.uk Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 10:05 PM To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply Actually, I disagree and this is where the constitution is badly worded - ordinary members is also used to describe members of Quanta, not just the committee and I would therefore interpret this clause to mean that the Committee can fill vacancies by [co-opting members of Quanta] to the Committee - ordinary members is used in clause 4.1 to refer to the membership of Quanta (or are you suggesting that only the spouse of officers could ever be an associate member? In fact the wording of clause 5.0 uses the term 'other members' to refer to the members of the committee who are not officers - nowhere is the term 'ordinary members' used in this sense. - It's discussions like this that I used to love when I was a solicitor and/or company secretary - invariably the person asking the question never wants to hear the official answer which always has to be well it CAN be interpreted as - nothing is ever definite when it comes to the law, that's why in pages of legal documentation, you never see full stops, commas, or semicolons - it leaves it more open to interpretation - and more money for the solicitors! Actually Rich we are not in such disagreement. Your original reply jogged my memory and when I posted the interpretation of the constitution last year I stumbled over that point. Did ordinary member mean an ordinary member of the committee or a non-committee member? In fact I asked a series of questions that the committee should look at for clarification thinking that if they could do that in advance it would make it easier to avoid problems by any co-option. Thank god this discussion is now becoming serious and tackling issues that it should do. A lot of people think law in black and white, but it is more shades of grey than anything else and that is how lawyers become rich, Best wishes, Geoff ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply - from the Treasurer
On 30/01/2011 09:29, gdgqler wrote: On 29 Jan 2011, at 20:24, Geoff Wicks wrote: Can a person who has been appointed treasurer of Quanta in a breach of the constitution - a legally binding document - legally sign cheques under British law? If the bank accepts the signature it doesn't matter whether it is legally binding or not. Many years ago Standard Life and Scottish Widows jointly owned a computer. Every year an AGM was held. There were just three people there and I was one. There were supposed to be directors and shareholders. The Scottish Widows representative was a stickler for accuracy and protocol. He was filled to the brim with chagrin when, one year, it was pointed out that all the meetings to date were invalid because of some legal technicality such as shareholders not being present or having sent proxies. The moral is that the legal situation does not matter at all unless someone complains. George ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm I like the story - however, why would a jointly owned computer need an AGM ?? -- Rich Mellor RWAP Services http://www.rwapsoftware.co.uk http://www.rwapservices.co.uk -- Try out our new site: http://sellmyretro.com ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply - from the Treasurer
On 30 Jan 2011, at 10:05, Rich Mellor wrote: On 30/01/2011 09:29, gdgqler wrote: On 29 Jan 2011, at 20:24, Geoff Wicks wrote: Can a person who has been appointed treasurer of Quanta in a breach of the constitution - a legally binding document - legally sign cheques under British law? If the bank accepts the signature it doesn't matter whether it is legally binding or not. Many years ago Standard Life and Scottish Widows jointly owned a computer. Every year an AGM was held. There were just three people there and I was one. There were supposed to be directors and shareholders. The Scottish Widows representative was a stickler for accuracy and protocol. He was filled to the brim with chagrin when, one year, it was pointed out that all the meetings to date were invalid because of some legal technicality such as shareholders not being present or having sent proxies. The moral is that the legal situation does not matter at all unless someone complains. George ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm I like the story - however, why would a jointly owned computer need an AGM ?? A company was set up jointly owned by Scottish Widows and Standard Life to run the computer. When the computer was being built, representatives of the two offices went to see the work in progress. They were rather annoyed to see the notice attached to their machine. It read Scottish Life, a different company in Edinburgh. George ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply - from the Treasurer
On 30/01/2011 10:16, gdgqler wrote: On 30 Jan 2011, at 10:05, Rich Mellor wrote: On 30/01/2011 09:29, gdgqler wrote: On 29 Jan 2011, at 20:24, Geoff Wicks wrote: Can a person who has been appointed treasurer of Quanta in a breach of the constitution - a legally binding document - legally sign cheques under British law? If the bank accepts the signature it doesn't matter whether it is legally binding or not. Many years ago Standard Life and Scottish Widows jointly owned a computer. Every year an AGM was held. There were just three people there and I was one. There were supposed to be directors and shareholders. The Scottish Widows representative was a stickler for accuracy and protocol. He was filled to the brim with chagrin when, one year, it was pointed out that all the meetings to date were invalid because of some legal technicality such as shareholders not being present or having sent proxies. The moral is that the legal situation does not matter at all unless someone complains. George ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm I like the story - however, why would a jointly owned computer need an AGM ?? A company was set up jointly owned by Scottish Widows and Standard Life to run the computer. When the computer was being built, representatives of the two offices went to see the work in progress. They were rather annoyed to see the notice attached to their machine. It read Scottish Life, a different company in Edinburgh. George ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm Hee hee - that is fun - maybe it would have been much better to have left the original label on it - Sinclair QL -- Rich Mellor RWAP Services http://www.rwapsoftware.co.uk http://www.rwapservices.co.uk -- Try out our new site: http://sellmyretro.com ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply
In message 4d44a2e0.7040...@sbcglobal.net, Timothy Swenson swenso...@sbcglobal.net writes Hi Tim, The simple way around this, is for all of the Officers to step down at the AGM, every Year. Then, for a few seconds, the organisation has no Officers - no one in charge. Following this brief period of time, the names of the members standing as Officers is read out - by the Secretary - to the general membership present (which can be any or all of the previously serving Officers). These then become the Officers for the forthcoming Year. This is what I practice as the Company Secretary to a Limited Company by Guarantee and Not for Profit, and a Registered Charity. In our case we have a Board of Trustees, standing down, and then continuing in to the forthcoming Year (if the individuals wish to re-stand). New nominations are also taken at this time. The problem with setting a period of time for an Officer to serve, always causes problems at some time or other. Especially, the more complicated versions, where Officers resign in some kind of sequence linked to a period served. The Charity Commission, in the UK, has a number of standard Constitutions, on its web site, which are there to be used depending on the type and purpose of the organisation. An AGM, is a General Meeting of the organisation. Open to all members to attend. Yet, Officers, as such are not elected at AGM's. People simply put themselves forward to serve, in a public manner. It is then for the Committee / Board to decide who is best suited to the various Posts. On which they take a Vote. Were Officers to be elected, directly, at an AGM, it would open the door to someone incompetent to get voted in, or some collusion to take place. For a Registered Company, all the Board members are listed, openly, on the Companies House Register. Which is available for the public to see. From the discussion I can get a feel for what might be the issue that is being discussed. Over the last 12 years I've been on the Board of 4 different non-profits. I've written the By-laws (what you guys are calling the Constitution) for one non-profit. The only time the By-laws really come into play is when someone thinks that the organization is not behaving properly. I was in one non-profit where there were two factions and we really needed the By-laws to keep everyone playing properly. In another non-profit, the By-laws stipulate how long an officer may hold an office. We've ignored this part of the By-laws because there is no one stepping up to take over the office. If we followed the By-laws all of the officers would be termed out and with no one stepping up to take over, the organization would basically have no Board. If someone does step forward to complain, we'll volunteer them for an office. :-) Tim Swenson -- Malcolm Cadman ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply
On 1/30/2011 10:48 AM, Malcolm Cadman wrote: Were Officers to be elected, directly, at an AGM, it would open the door to someone incompetent to get voted in, or some collusion to take place. Interesting, as California State code for Non-profits pretty much specifies that members vote on officers and the board. It is only the members that can make any changes to the By-laws. I'm guessing that the AGM is the same as a General Member Meeting. Most non-profits have one every year for elections. In one non-profit I'm involved with, rarely does a regular member attend these meetings and only the Board members show up (even with the required notification sent out). Tim Swenson ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply
On Friday 28 Jan 2011 20:29:56 Geoff Wicks wrote: Having written all this let me be the first person to state in public that the time has come for Quanta to be wound up. When an organisation is reduced to breaching its constitution to survive it has become a gigantic farce. If we needed Quanta we would be using it. In practice the active members of Quanta represent under 10% of the UK QL community and under 5% of the international QL community. The demise of Quanta is something the QL community can survive, I wholeheartedly agree that the QL community could easily survive the demise of Quanta. I wholeheartedly disagree that Quanta should be wound up. Let me explain my position and my personal reasons why. I am a very bad Quanta member. I pay my subscription. I read the magazine. I attend the local subgroup. I will even go to the AGM. I avoid anything to do with the committee, partly because I have such strong views and do not want to sway my wife, Alison, who is the current secretary. I have twice in the past been on the Quanta committee, once with Geoff. I have no wish to be on the committee again, because the last time I received a letter threatening legal recourse because someone was upset about something or other and while it was all settled with a shake of hands, life is too short to be that bothered about a computer club for enthusiasts. I like the QL. I use mine although not as often as I would like, but probably more than I should. I have FAILED to upload all the survey that everyone kindly submitted. I have FAILED to write some articles that I have promised the Editor often. I do much that is half hearted. I have a QL on a stick that both lets me install uQLx under Linux or boots a Linux distribution off the stick with uQLx ready to run, but once done the challenge was over and interests move on. I think there is much that the community should be doing, but again that is my opinion. However, when it comes to Quanta, I am of the opinion that if you personally, do not want Quanta, for whatever reason, then leave it. People do for many reasons, be it apathy, no longer have the time or just want to move on. That is fine. I am grateful that they enriched the Quanta community. Some stay in the QL community. Great. That is their choice and they continue to enrich it. Some leave altogether and I am sad, but again that is their choice. I want to be in Quanta, I want Quanta to continue because I like it and gain benefit. I see no reason to wind it up because someone else does not get benefit from it when if that is the case they are not forced to remain and can leave. Like most things apathy wins. It is easier to do nothing and let the flow continue. As you, Geoff, seem to care for the community and have done so in the past, are you willing to assist Quanta? If you are willing, I will gladly propose you as a committee member. We would just need to find a seconder in time. Regards John Southern ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply
I'm guessing that the AGM is the same as a General Member Meeting. Yes, the AGM TLA stands for Annual General Meeting. Dilwyn Jones ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply
On 28 Jan 2011, at 22:18, Tony Firshman wrote: My view is that Quanta is still needed and rightly so - plenty of people are still returning to the QL and need a source of knowledge and hand-holding, it is just that Quanta needs more members and particularly committee members to help drive it forward. I see no point in winding up Quanta. Of course Quanta should not be wound up. What an idea. George ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply
On 29/01/2011 09:58, gdgqler wrote: On 28 Jan 2011, at 22:18, Tony Firshman wrote: My view is that Quanta is still needed and rightly so - plenty of people are still returning to the QL and need a source of knowledge and hand-holding, it is just that Quanta needs more members and particularly committee members to help drive it forward. I see no point in winding up Quanta. Of course Quanta should not be wound up. What an idea. George ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm If the future of Quanta is in legal jeopardy due to breaches of the constitution, then the constitution needs changed to reflect members needs (availability of officers). If the constitution cannot be changed (because it's the constitution) then Quanta needs to become Quanta 2011, only problem I see is the transfer of funds - sure there is a way though All the best - Bill ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply
-- From: Rich Mellor r...@rwapservices.co.uk Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 10:05 PM To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply I don't want to become embroiled in the discussions over the constitution of Quanta and without seeing the minutes of the meeting at the end of the AGM, I presume that the committee co-opted John under article 5.8 which says that The Committee shall have power to fill vacancies by co-opting ordinary members to the Committee. Such members shall have a vote in committee and shall serve until the next Annual General Meeting. It does not say anywhere that the co-opted members cannot serve as officers and vacancies is wide enough to be interpreted as meaning three officers and not more than 6 other committee members, unless I am missing something, but I agree that the constitution is badly worded. With respect the answer is already there. Clause 5.8 says specifically ordinary members. The 2005 amendments created a structural difference between ordinary members and officers of the committee. Perhaps one of the lessons of this is that constitutional amendments should never be railroaded through without proper discussion. I was a member of the committee at the time and even we ordinary members of the committee were given just 10 minutes notice of the proposed amendments on a take it or leave it basis, Best Wishes, Geoff Best Wishes, Geoff ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply
-- From: Billy bill.wa...@btinternet.com Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 11:02 AM To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply If the future of Quanta is in legal jeopardy due to breaches of the constitution, then the constitution needs changed to reflect members needs (availability of officers). If the constitution cannot be changed (because it's the constitution) then Quanta needs to become Quanta 2011, only problem I see is the transfer of funds - sure there is a way though All the best - Bill ___ Hear! Hear! It would be possible for Quanta to be wound up to make way for Quanta 2011 although it probably could not be done until 2012. There was a precedent for this in the Netherlands where Sin_QL_Air was wound up and in the same week, I believe, a new Sin_QL_Air was created, Best wishes, Geoff ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
[Ql-Users] Finally a reply - from the Treasurer
Having read with interest Geoff Wicks' musings about the errors in QUANTA's ways, I would like to give you all, the facts that both me and the QUANTA Committee considered to be in accordance with the current (at that time) QUANTA Constitution. I joined the QUANTA Committee in April 2001 - see copy of the minutes of the A. G. M. for that year - as an ordinary Committee member and was asked to take on the duties of (head) librarian - there being no other librarians anyway. At the A. G. M. in the following year - 2002 - following the resignation of both Bill Newell and John Taylor I was nominated as Treasurer to the QUANTA Committee - a post that was amalgamated with that of Membership Secretary - two posts that were seen to be connected by the payment of subscription and the handling of QUANTA funds. Similarly, the posts of Software Controller and Librarian were also combined - a post undertaken by the then Software Controller John Gregory which meant that I relinquished my previous role of Librarian. Early in 2005, QUANTA Committee discussed and then decided that moves ought to be put in place to limit the length of time served by committee members (Officers and Ordinary members) with the result that members were asked to approve Special Resolution No. 1 (Changes to clause 5 of the QUANTA Constitution) at the A. G. M. in April 2005. The original discussions on this topic came from comments heard that the QUANTA Committee were getting stale and had nothing further to offer.The Resolution was approved and the Constitution was duly updated and re-issued to all members in February 2006 as Issue 2 Revision 0. This revision was deemed to be effective from that date. At the date of the A. G. M. 2009, both John Mason (Chairman) and John Gilpin (Treasurer), under the new clause 5 of the constitution were due to stand down and in accordance with Clause 5.5 they, JM JG, by agreement decided that John Mason would stand down since he had served slightly longer than John Gilpin on the Committee without a break. The following year (April 2010), having served continuously on the committee since 2001, (over 6 years) and as an officer since 2002 (over three years), John Gilpin tendered his resignation from the committee (under clauses 5.2 and 5.4 of the constitution). At this point, April 2010, John Gilpin's QUANTA membership status reverted to that of Ordinary Member.There were no nominations for the post of Treasurer/Membership Secretary and immediately following the A. G. M. the new committee held a meeting where they co-opted John Gilpin (Ordinary Member) onto the committee under clause 5.8. By agreement of all concerned, John Gilpin was asked to carry out the duties of Treasurer/Membership Secretary until The Next A. G. M. - see clause 5.8. - to see if anyone had decided to take on this role. One has to pay quite a lot of money to have clauses drafted which are word perfect with no errors and/or ambiguities by a professional and the committee having submitted the Special resolution approved at the AGM in 2005 to it's members and having not received any requests to amend the same the then committee deemed that the suggested modifications were adequate for the purpose intended - to limit the time served on the committee to six continuous years for ordinary committee members of which not more than three continuous years may be served as an officer With all Geoff Wicks' working experience as an officer of the British law Courts, surely he could have spotted what he seems to feel are these anomalies while they were still at committee stage and suggest further discussion (even if that would have meant putting any ill feeling between himself and other Committee member(s) in abeyance for a while!) rather than find objections some six years later. My suggestion to him and any other QUANTA Members now is this: If there is anything about QUANTA that you don't understand or that you disapprove of then drop a line to the Secretary expressing your concerns and give the Committee the opportunity to discuss the matter(s) instead of joining the vast majority of QUANTA Members in their apathy. Perhaps he could also suggest the basis of a Special resolution to be put before the Members at the coming A. G. M. in April in order to remove what he feels are errors in the constitution.. What we DON'T want is a document which is far more wordy and difficult to understand than the one we already have. QUANTA's Constitution is NOT written in stone. All it needs is for a member, be they ordinary member, committee member or Officer, to propose a Special resolution to be put before the members at a General Meeting (A. G. M.or Special General Meeting) for approval as has happened on numerous occasions in the past, but DON'T leave it to someone else to do and then criticise their efforts because no one else had the guts to get up and be counted. To me it seems that
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply - from the Treasurer
But this is a discussion we should have had a year ago when I first posted on this issue. And in reply to your private email - no I'm not angry, Best Wishes, Geoff PS Guess who I have upset by posting this at the top! -- From: John Gilpin thegilp...@btinternet.com Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 3:15 PM To: ql-users ql-us...@q-v-d.com Subject: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply - from the Treasurer Having read with interest Geoff Wicks' musings about the errors in QUANTA's ways, I would like to give you all, the facts that both me and the QUANTA Committee considered to be in accordance with the current (at that time) QUANTA Constitution. I joined the QUANTA Committee in April 2001 - see copy of the minutes of the A. G. M. for that year - as an ordinary Committee member and was asked to take on the duties of (head) librarian - there being no other librarians anyway. At the A. G. M. in the following year - 2002 - following the resignation of both Bill Newell and John Taylor I was nominated as Treasurer to the QUANTA Committee - a post that was amalgamated with that of Membership Secretary - two posts that were seen to be connected by the payment of subscription and the handling of QUANTA funds. Similarly, the posts of Software Controller and Librarian were also combined - a post undertaken by the then Software Controller John Gregory which meant that I relinquished my previous role of Librarian. Early in 2005, QUANTA Committee discussed and then decided that moves ought to be put in place to limit the length of time served by committee members (Officers and Ordinary members) with the result that members were asked to approve Special Resolution No. 1 (Changes to clause 5 of the QUANTA Constitution) at the A. G. M. in April 2005. The original discussions on this topic came from comments heard that the QUANTA Committee were getting stale and had nothing further to offer.The Resolution was approved and the Constitution was duly updated and re-issued to all members in February 2006 as Issue 2 Revision 0. This revision was deemed to be effective from that date. At the date of the A. G. M. 2009, both John Mason (Chairman) and John Gilpin (Treasurer), under the new clause 5 of the constitution were due to stand down and in accordance with Clause 5.5 they, JM JG, by agreement decided that John Mason would stand down since he had served slightly longer than John Gilpin on the Committee without a break. The following year (April 2010), having served continuously on the committee since 2001, (over 6 years) and as an officer since 2002 (over three years), John Gilpin tendered his resignation from the committee (under clauses 5.2 and 5.4 of the constitution). At this point, April 2010, John Gilpin's QUANTA membership status reverted to that of Ordinary Member.There were no nominations for the post of Treasurer/Membership Secretary and immediately following the A. G. M. the new committee held a meeting where they co-opted John Gilpin (Ordinary Member) onto the committee under clause 5.8. By agreement of all concerned, John Gilpin was asked to carry out the duties of Treasurer/Membership Secretary until The Next A. G. M. - see clause 5.8. - to see if anyone had decided to take on this role. One has to pay quite a lot of money to have clauses drafted which are word perfect with no errors and/or ambiguities by a professional and the committee having submitted the Special resolution approved at the AGM in 2005 to it's members and having not received any requests to amend the same the then committee deemed that the suggested modifications were adequate for the purpose intended - to limit the time served on the committee to six continuous years for ordinary committee members of which not more than three continuous years may be served as an officer With all Geoff Wicks' working experience as an officer of the British law Courts, surely he could have spotted what he seems to feel are these anomalies while they were still at committee stage and suggest further discussion (even if that would have meant putting any ill feeling between himself and other Committee member(s) in abeyance for a while!) rather than find objections some six years later. My suggestion to him and any other QUANTA Members now is this: If there is anything about QUANTA that you don't understand or that you disapprove of then drop a line to the Secretary expressing your concerns and give the Committee the opportunity to discuss the matter(s) instead of joining the vast majority of QUANTA Members in their apathy. Perhaps he could also suggest the basis of a Special resolution to be put before the Members at the coming A. G. M. in April in order to remove what he feels are errors in the constitution.. What we DON'T want is a document which is far more wordy and difficult to understand than the one we already have. QUANTA's Constitution
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply
On 28/01/11 20:29, Geoff Wicks wrote: -- From: Dilwyn Jones dil...@evans1511.fsnet.co.uk Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 3:09 PM To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] [QL-Users] Sandy Futura (PDF from Urs) Snip John Gilpin will be standing down from his numerous committee roles at the AGM and the new post holders should quickly find that his emails suddenly arrive in their inbox, provided we (or Geoff, any ideas???) don't invent devious ways to force him to stay against his wishes ;o)) Dilwyn asked me a question just before Christmas which I deliberately did not answer as I did not wish to interfere with the democratic election process. I know nothing about the current state of nominations, but as the deadline is Monday it is time to reply. I don't know why I am bothering. About a year ago I posted a detailed clause by clause interpretation of the Quanta Constitution arguing that the committee had misunderstood the constitution and that John Gilpin did not have to step down from the committee until 2012. I invited people to dispute my interpretation on legal grounds and no one, but no one, has done so. Not even Quanta who cannot justify their own interpretation in the same detail. Instead of taking my advice the committee stuck two fingers up at me - or more correctly as there were 6 committee members at the time - 12 fingers. What the committee did last year was absolute crass stupidity. It was not their intention, of course, but they have almost certainly placed Quanta on the wrong side of British law. And not just civil law. Should anyone doubt my qualifications for expressing such a firm opinion may I remind you that for a quarter of my working life I was an officer of the British law courts. Somewhat perversely Quanta's breach of the constitution and of British law could be its salvation this year. John Gilpin was appointed treasurer in two clear breaches of the constitution. As he voluntarily resigned from the committee at the 2010 AGM he lost his status as an officer and the full rigours of clause 5.2 applied to him. Under the constitution he became not just ineligible but, more strongly, forbidden to be treasurer. The co-option was also irregular as the committee have no powers to co-opt an officer. Clause 5.8 only permits the co-option of ordinary committee members. In other words neither the constitution nor British law recognised John as a valid committee member or a valid treasurer. Legally he did not sit on the committee last year. By the next AGM he will not have been a committee member for a year and thus can stand again for office. However this has to be by the nomination of two members before 1st February. As he was not legally on the committee last year, he will also have to pay his £14 subscription before the nomination paper is signed. Having written all this let me be the first person to state in public that the time has come for Quanta to be wound up. When an organisation is reduced to breaching its constitution to survive it has become a gigantic farce. If we needed Quanta we would be using it. In practice the active members of Quanta represent under 10% of the UK QL community and under 5% of the international QL community. The demise of Quanta is something the QL community can survive, Best Wishes, Geoff ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm Quanta should continue,if there is a breach of constitution then change it. Why not wind up, this type of topic and start writing much needed applications programs that can show the QL Operating systems power. -- Regards Derek ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply - from the Treasurer
Hi Geoff, Suggest you look up transactional analysis in google especially critical parent and willful child roles. In law in the UK there is a differentiation between criminal and civil law. Any perceived violations of Quanta's constitution will fall in to civil law, unless you are suggesting fraud according to the criminal definition of this. If not then if there is a legal case to be made because of some injury, someone, an individual or group of individuals, needs to sue. It seems on this list at the moment only you feel there is a case to be made. The question then is are you going to sue Quanta. If not then what is your purpose. Kind Regards Duncan -Original Message- From: Geoff Wicks gtwi...@btinternet.com To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com Sent: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 17:42 Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply - from the Treasurer But this is a discussion we should have had a year ago when I first posted on this issue. And in reply to your private email - no I'm not angry, Best Wishes, Geoff PS Guess who I have upset by posting this at the top! -- From: John Gilpin thegilp...@btinternet.com Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 3:15 PM To: ql-users ql-us...@q-v-d.com Subject: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply - from the Treasurer Having read with interest Geoff Wicks' musings about the errors in QUANTA's ways, I would like to give you all, the facts that both me and the QUANTA Committee considered to be in accordance with the current (at that time) QUANTA Constitution. I joined the QUANTA Committee in April 2001 - see copy of the minutes of the A. G. M. for that year - as an ordinary Committee member and was asked to take on the duties of (head) librarian - there being no other librarians anyway. At the A. G. M. in the following year - 2002 - following the resignation of both Bill Newell and John Taylor I was nominated as Treasurer to the QUANTA Committee - a post that was amalgamated with that of Membership Secretary - two posts that were seen to be connected by the payment of subscription and the handling of QUANTA funds. Similarly, the posts of Software Controller and Librarian were also combined - a post undertaken by the then Software Controller John Gregory which meant that I relinquished my previous role of Librarian. Early in 2005, QUANTA Committee discussed and then decided that moves ought to be put in place to limit the length of time served by committee members (Officers and Ordinary members) with the result that members were asked to approve Special Resolution No. 1 (Changes to clause 5 of the QUANTA Constitution) at the A. G. M. in April 2005. The original discussions on this topic came from comments heard that the QUANTA Committee were getting stale and had nothing further to offer.The Resolution was approved and the Constitution was duly updated and re-issued to all members in February 2006 as Issue 2 Revision 0. This revision was deemed to be effective from that date. At the date of the A. G. M. 2009, both John Mason (Chairman) and John Gilpin (Treasurer), under the new clause 5 of the constitution were due to stand down and in accordance with Clause 5.5 they, JM JG, by agreement decided that John Mason would stand down since he had served slightly longer than John Gilpin on the Committee without a break. The following year (April 2010), having served continuously on the committee since 2001, (over 6 years) and as an officer since 2002 (over three years), John Gilpin tendered his resignation from the committee (under clauses 5.2 and 5.4 of the constitution). At this point, April 2010, John Gilpin's QUANTA membership status reverted to that of Ordinary Member.There were no nominations for the post of Treasurer/Membership Secretary and immediately following the A. G. M. the new committee held a meeting where they co-opted John Gilpin (Ordinary Member) onto the committee under clause 5.8. By agreement of all concerned, John Gilpin was asked to carry out the duties of Treasurer/Membership Secretary until The Next A. G. M. - see clause 5.8. - to see if anyone had decided to take on this role. One has to pay quite a lot of money to have clauses drafted which are word perfect with no errors and/or ambiguities by a professional and the committee having submitted the Special resolution approved at the AGM in 2005 to it's members and having not received any requests to amend the same the then committee deemed that the suggested modifications were adequate for the purpose intended - to limit the time served on the committee to six continuous years for ordinary committee members of which not more than three continuous years may be served as an officer With all Geoff Wicks' working experience as an officer of the British law Courts, surely he could
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply - from the Treasurer
-- From: matras...@aol.com Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 7:49 PM To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply - from the Treasurer Hi Geoff, Suggest you look up transactional analysis in google especially critical parent and willful child roles. In law in the UK there is a differentiation between criminal and civil law. Any perceived violations of Quanta's constitution will fall in to civil law, unless you are suggesting fraud according to the criminal definition of this. If not then if there is a legal case to be made because of some injury, someone, an individual or group of individuals, needs to sue. It seems on this list at the moment only you feel there is a case to be made. The question then is are you going to sue Quanta. If not then what is your purpose. Answer a simple question, but the answer has to be not as a layman would answer but as a lawyer would answer: Can a person who has been appointed treasurer of Quanta in a breach of the constitution - a legally binding document - legally sign cheques under British law? Best Wishes, Geoff _ ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply
-- From: Derek Stewart de...@q40.de Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 7:46 PM To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply Geoff Quanta should continue,if there is a breach of constitution then change it. Why not wind up, this type of topic and start writing much needed applications programs that can show the QL Operating systems power. No committee = no Quanta, Best Wishes, Geoff ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply
On 29/01/2011 12:54, Geoff Wicks wrote: -- From: Rich Mellor r...@rwapservices.co.uk Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 10:05 PM To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply I don't want to become embroiled in the discussions over the constitution of Quanta and without seeing the minutes of the meeting at the end of the AGM, I presume that the committee co-opted John under article 5.8 which says that The Committee shall have power to fill vacancies by co-opting ordinary members to the Committee. Such members shall have a vote in committee and shall serve until the next Annual General Meeting. It does not say anywhere that the co-opted members cannot serve as officers and vacancies is wide enough to be interpreted as meaning three officers and not more than 6 other committee members, unless I am missing something, but I agree that the constitution is badly worded. With respect the answer is already there. Clause 5.8 says specifically ordinary members. The 2005 amendments created a structural difference between ordinary members and officers of the committee. Perhaps one of the lessons of this is that constitutional amendments should never be railroaded through without proper discussion. I was a member of the committee at the time and even we ordinary members of the committee were given just 10 minutes notice of the proposed amendments on a take it or leave it basis, Best Wishes, Geoff Best Wishes, Geoff ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm Hi Geoff, Actually, I disagree and this is where the constitution is badly worded - ordinary members is also used to describe members of Quanta, not just the committee and I would therefore interpret this clause to mean that the Committee can fill vacancies by [co-opting members of Quanta] to the Committee - ordinary members is used in clause 4.1 to refer to the membership of Quanta (or are you suggesting that only the spouse of officers could ever be an associate member? In fact the wording of clause 5.0 uses the term 'other members' to refer to the members of the committee who are not officers - nowhere is the term 'ordinary members' used in this sense. - It's discussions like this that I used to love when I was a solicitor and/or company secretary - invariably the person asking the question never wants to hear the official answer which always has to be well it CAN be interpreted as - nothing is ever definite when it comes to the law, that's why in pages of legal documentation, you never see full stops, commas, or semicolons - it leaves it more open to interpretation - and more money for the solicitors! -- Rich Mellor RWAP Services http://www.rwapsoftware.co.uk http://www.rwapservices.co.uk -- Try out our new site: http://sellmyretro.com ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply
Hi Geoff, Actually, I disagree and this is where the constitution is badly worded - ordinary members is also used to describe members of Quanta, not just the committee and I would therefore interpret this clause to mean that the Committee can fill vacancies by [co-opting members of Quanta] to the Committee - ordinary members is used in clause 4.1 to refer to the membership of Quanta (or are you suggesting that only the spouse of officers could ever be an associate member? In fact the wording of clause 5.0 uses the term 'other members' to refer to the members of the committee who are not officers - nowhere is the term 'ordinary members' used in this sense. - It's discussions like this that I used to love when I was a solicitor and/or company secretary - invariably the person asking the question never wants to hear the official answer which always has to be well it CAN be interpreted as - nothing is ever definite when it comes to the law, that's why in pages of legal documentation, you never see full stops, commas, or semicolons - it leaves it more open to interpretation - and more money for the solicitors! -- Rich Mellor RWAP Services Ho hum, so we're down to trying to define the word member now are we? I freely confess to knowing nothing about constitutions, never being able to understand them etc (and usually like being on committees even less, even though I'm also on the committee of a local craft association). This sort of discussion does my head in - and that's not directed at and no disrespect intended to Rich, Geoff or anyone else. I joined the comittee to do the sorts of work I do now there, and have no ambition to become an officer of any committee. It would be nice if someone like you with legal training could redraft the problem areas so that any necessary amendments to the constitution could be proposed when the opportunity arises, with some certainty that it might resolve this matter before too much damage is done. I know it's a minefield, of course. Of course, the ideal solution would be to have enough members volunteering to serve on committee that this type of clause is not needed. We have opportunities for a treasurer, membership secretary, magazine editor for example! Technically, it's not too late. Get your nomination paper to Quanta's secretary by the end of January (although you might have to scan and email it in the next day or two to her - hope Alison is ready for a last minute rush!). After all, we could _POTENTIALLY_ end up with no Quanta, which surely can't be in anyone's interest. Dilwyn Jones ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply - from the Treasurer
I asked a friend who could give an opinion and she said: The question here is, If a person is appointed to a position in contravention of the Constitution, is the appointment invalid or is it merely improper. If the appointment is invalid, the person is not the position holder and cannot conduct the actions of the position lawfully. If the appointment is improper, they can - the failing not occurring in their actions but in the actions of their election. Another, broader concept applies here. The Constitution is the rules of the organization, and they can be nullified by a vote which ignores or overrides them. In this case, the election of an individual to a position they are explicitly barred from holding is a nullification of those elements of the Constitution, and is improper. It is not illegal. The organization should then revisit and revise the Constitution. The person holding this position in this case can lawfully sign a cheque. Opinion of Jacqui Webb, Head of Commercial Law, Partner. So that's that. I'm sorry to see Quanta falling into this type of problem as the membership shrinks. It would be prudent for Quanta to recognize their new role as Guardian of the Data and to trim the burden of their Constitution to better face the reality of the world in which they now operate. Good luck! Dave Dave ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply
From the discussion I can get a feel for what might be the issue that is being discussed. Over the last 12 years I've been on the Board of 4 different non-profits. I've written the By-laws (what you guys are calling the Constitution) for one non-profit. The only time the By-laws really come into play is when someone thinks that the organization is not behaving properly. I was in one non-profit where there were two factions and we really needed the By-laws to keep everyone playing properly. In another non-profit, the By-laws stipulate how long an officer may hold an office. We've ignored this part of the By-laws because there is no one stepping up to take over the office. If we followed the By-laws all of the officers would be termed out and with no one stepping up to take over, the organization would basically have no Board. If someone does step forward to complain, we'll volunteer them for an office. :-) Tim Swenson ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply
On 29/01/2011 23:29, Timothy Swenson wrote: From the discussion I can get a feel for what might be the issue that is being discussed. Over the last 12 years I've been on the Board of 4 different non-profits. I've written the By-laws (what you guys are calling the Constitution) for one non-profit. The only time the By-laws really come into play is when someone thinks that the organization is not behaving properly. I was in one non-profit where there were two factions and we really needed the By-laws to keep everyone playing properly. In another non-profit, the By-laws stipulate how long an officer may hold an office. We've ignored this part of the By-laws because there is no one stepping up to take over the office. If we followed the By-laws all of the officers would be termed out and with no one stepping up to take over, the organization would basically have no Board. If someone does step forward to complain, we'll volunteer them for an office. :-) Tim Swenson ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm With so much experience - maybe we should nominate Tim to the committee? !! On a more serious note, I wonder how many people on this list do not subscribe to Quanta - if so, are they willing to share their reasons why? The same question probably should be asked about QL Today subscription -- Rich Mellor RWAP Services http://www.rwapsoftware.co.uk http://www.rwapservices.co.uk -- Try out our new site: http://sellmyretro.com ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply
On 1/29/2011 3:51 PM, Rich Mellor wrote: With so much experience - maybe we should nominate Tim to the committee? !! Nice Idea, but I think it will be a hell of a commute for me to attend any Quanta meeting. Even by phone, I'm 8 time zones away from the UK. I've let my QL Today subscription lapse because it's been 3 years since I've sparked up any QL emulator (and longer for original system). I still have my QL stuff around and don't see getting rid of any time soon, since I might come back to it. After over 25 years, I've just come back to some ZX81 assembly programming. I've been tempted to dig into the garage and digitize all of the IQLR newsletters that I have. Tim Swenson ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply
On 30/01/2011 00:05, Timothy Swenson wrote: On 1/29/2011 3:51 PM, Rich Mellor wrote: With so much experience - maybe we should nominate Tim to the committee? !! Nice Idea, but I think it will be a hell of a commute for me to attend any Quanta meeting. Even by phone, I'm 8 time zones away from the UK. I've let my QL Today subscription lapse because it's been 3 years since I've sparked up any QL emulator (and longer for original system). I still have my QL stuff around and don't see getting rid of any time soon, since I might come back to it. After over 25 years, I've just come back to some ZX81 assembly programming. I've been tempted to dig into the garage and digitize all of the IQLR newsletters that I have. Tim Swenson ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm It was said in jest really Tim - although surely virtual meetings are possible... It's a shame you have not kept up the QL Today subscription - maybe you could be persuaded it is worthwhile, just to keep a track of what is happening. Have you signed up to the ZX80/ZX81 forums - some interesting things on there as well about assembly programming - www.rwapservices.co.uk/ZX80_ZX81/forums/ -- Rich Mellor RWAP Services http://www.rwapsoftware.co.uk http://www.rwapservices.co.uk -- Try out our new site: http://sellmyretro.com ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply
On 1/29/2011 5:32 PM, Rich Mellor wrote: Have you signed up to the ZX80/ZX81 forums - some interesting things on there as well about assembly programming - www.rwapservices.co.uk/ZX80_ZX81/forums/ Rich, you must be getting old. Don't you remember my signing up and a few e-mails about the Board. Or were asking me about it as a way to plug the board :-) Tim Swenson ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply
-- From: Dilwyn Jones dil...@evans1511.fsnet.co.uk Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 3:09 PM To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] [QL-Users] Sandy Futura (PDF from Urs) Snip John Gilpin will be standing down from his numerous committee roles at the AGM and the new post holders should quickly find that his emails suddenly arrive in their inbox, provided we (or Geoff, any ideas???) don't invent devious ways to force him to stay against his wishes ;o)) Dilwyn asked me a question just before Christmas which I deliberately did not answer as I did not wish to interfere with the democratic election process. I know nothing about the current state of nominations, but as the deadline is Monday it is time to reply. I don't know why I am bothering. About a year ago I posted a detailed clause by clause interpretation of the Quanta Constitution arguing that the committee had misunderstood the constitution and that John Gilpin did not have to step down from the committee until 2012. I invited people to dispute my interpretation on legal grounds and no one, but no one, has done so. Not even Quanta who cannot justify their own interpretation in the same detail. Instead of taking my advice the committee stuck two fingers up at me - or more correctly as there were 6 committee members at the time - 12 fingers. What the committee did last year was absolute crass stupidity. It was not their intention, of course, but they have almost certainly placed Quanta on the wrong side of British law. And not just civil law. Should anyone doubt my qualifications for expressing such a firm opinion may I remind you that for a quarter of my working life I was an officer of the British law courts. Somewhat perversely Quanta's breach of the constitution and of British law could be its salvation this year. John Gilpin was appointed treasurer in two clear breaches of the constitution. As he voluntarily resigned from the committee at the 2010 AGM he lost his status as an officer and the full rigours of clause 5.2 applied to him. Under the constitution he became not just ineligible but, more strongly, forbidden to be treasurer. The co-option was also irregular as the committee have no powers to co-opt an officer. Clause 5.8 only permits the co-option of ordinary committee members. In other words neither the constitution nor British law recognised John as a valid committee member or a valid treasurer. Legally he did not sit on the committee last year. By the next AGM he will not have been a committee member for a year and thus can stand again for office. However this has to be by the nomination of two members before 1st February. As he was not legally on the committee last year, he will also have to pay his £14 subscription before the nomination paper is signed. Having written all this let me be the first person to state in public that the time has come for Quanta to be wound up. When an organisation is reduced to breaching its constitution to survive it has become a gigantic farce. If we needed Quanta we would be using it. In practice the active members of Quanta represent under 10% of the UK QL community and under 5% of the international QL community. The demise of Quanta is something the QL community can survive, Best Wishes, Geoff ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply
On 28/01/2011 20:29, Geoff Wicks wrote: -- From: Dilwyn Jones dil...@evans1511.fsnet.co.uk Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 3:09 PM To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] [QL-Users] Sandy Futura (PDF from Urs) Snip John Gilpin will be standing down from his numerous committee roles at the AGM and the new post holders should quickly find that his emails suddenly arrive in their inbox, provided we (or Geoff, any ideas???) don't invent devious ways to force him to stay against his wishes ;o)) Dilwyn asked me a question just before Christmas which I deliberately did not answer as I did not wish to interfere with the democratic election process. I know nothing about the current state of nominations, but as the deadline is Monday it is time to reply. I don't know why I am bothering. About a year ago I posted a detailed clause by clause interpretation of the Quanta Constitution arguing that the committee had misunderstood the constitution and that John Gilpin did not have to step down from the committee until 2012. I invited people to dispute my interpretation on legal grounds and no one, but no one, has done so. Not even Quanta who cannot justify their own interpretation in the same detail. Instead of taking my advice the committee stuck two fingers up at me - or more correctly as there were 6 committee members at the time - 12 fingers. What the committee did last year was absolute crass stupidity. It was not their intention, of course, but they have almost certainly placed Quanta on the wrong side of British law. And not just civil law. Should anyone doubt my qualifications for expressing such a firm opinion may I remind you that for a quarter of my working life I was an officer of the British law courts. Somewhat perversely Quanta's breach of the constitution and of British law could be its salvation this year. John Gilpin was appointed treasurer in two clear breaches of the constitution. As he voluntarily resigned from the committee at the 2010 AGM he lost his status as an officer and the full rigours of clause 5.2 applied to him. Under the constitution he became not just ineligible but, more strongly, forbidden to be treasurer. The co-option was also irregular as the committee have no powers to co-opt an officer. Clause 5.8 only permits the co-option of ordinary committee members. In other words neither the constitution nor British law recognised John as a valid committee member or a valid treasurer. Legally he did not sit on the committee last year. By the next AGM he will not have been a committee member for a year and thus can stand again for office. However this has to be by the nomination of two members before 1st February. As he was not legally on the committee last year, he will also have to pay his £14 subscription before the nomination paper is signed. Having written all this let me be the first person to state in public that the time has come for Quanta to be wound up. When an organisation is reduced to breaching its constitution to survive it has become a gigantic farce. If we needed Quanta we would be using it. In practice the active members of Quanta represent under 10% of the UK QL community and under 5% of the international QL community. The demise of Quanta is something the QL community can survive, Best Wishes, Geoff ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm I don't want to become embroiled in the discussions over the constitution of Quanta and without seeing the minutes of the meeting at the end of the AGM, I presume that the committee co-opted John under article 5.8 which says that The Committee shall have power to fill vacancies by co-opting ordinary members to the Committee. Such members shall have a vote in committee and shall serve until the next Annual General Meeting. It does not say anywhere that the co-opted members cannot serve as officers and vacancies is wide enough to be interpreted as meaning three officers and not more than 6 other committee members, unless I am missing something, but I agree that the constitution is badly worded. At the end of the day, if members were really bothered about John Gilpin being co-opted back on as Treasurer, they would need to take action - but then, what has been the loss to Quanta or its members as a result? As it stands I wonder just how nominations will be received for people willing to stand as a committee member, let alone officer. I disagree that Quanta should be wound up - yes, it needs dragging into the 21st century, and perhaps this year, more so than any other year, is a real opportunity for people to put themselves forward to have a say in how Quanta is run and to make a real difference. Before suggesting that Quanta should be wound up, it has to be borne in mind, that they still hold quite a considerable war
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply
On 28 Jan 2011, at 22:05, Rich Mellor r...@rwapservices.co.uk wrote: snip I did start a thread on the QL Forums about how to improve Quanta, but even the QL community seems divided here - some people will stick steadfast to the ql-users mailing list, whereas others prefer the forum, where it is easier to find and follow previous threads. Thunderbird mimics forums and newsgroups as it can format mailing lists with a threaded view. I don't like forums as the postings do not arrive in my inbox. My view is that Quanta is still needed and rightly so - plenty of people are still returning to the QL and need a source of knowledge and hand-holding, it is just that Quanta needs more members and particularly committee members to help drive it forward. I see no point in winding up Quanta. Tony -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:257/67) +44(1442)-828255 t...@firshman.co.uk http://firshman.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 Skype: tonyfirshman TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, Tring, Herts, HP23 4DG ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply
I agree, but to get new blood you need to reach out to new blood first, I dont see that happening at the moment :( Lee Privett - Sent from my Laptop running XP but emulating the QL using QPC2 Snip My view is that Quanta is still needed and rightly so - plenty of people are still returning to the QL and need a source of knowledge and hand-holding, it is just that Quanta needs more members and particularly committee members to help drive it forward -- Rich Mellor RWAP Services http://www.rwapsoftware.co.uk http://www.rwapservices.co.uk -- Try out our new site: http://sellmyretro.com ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply
--- On Fri, 28/1/11, Lee Privett lee.priv...@gmail.com wrote: From: Lee Privett lee.priv...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com Date: Friday, 28 January, 2011, 22:22 I agree, but to get new blood you need to reach out to new blood first, I dont see that happening at the moment :( Lee Privett - Sent from my Laptop running XP but emulating the QL using QPC2 Snip I think what is needed is some kind of QL PR group to bombard retro computing and retrogaming websites and magazines etc with articles and information about the QL. With permissions they could update old articles with screenshots etc and use those as a staring point along with new material later on. Anything to get the word out onto the street. Peter. ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply
At the last count there were around 177 Quanta members, if each one took the trouble to send one email/write one letter to a website/magazine about the QL and the vast range of free software available for new people to experence retro computing/programing and having fun in the process, then there would be 176 more people doing that than I am aware of, and I dont see what harm it would do. Lee Privett - Sent from my Laptop running XP but emulating the QL using QPC2 - Original Message - From: peet vanpeebles peetvanpeeb...@yahoo.co.uk To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 10:39 PM Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply --- On Fri, 28/1/11, Lee Privett lee.priv...@gmail.com wrote: From: Lee Privett lee.priv...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com Date: Friday, 28 January, 2011, 22:22 I agree, but to get new blood you need to reach out to new blood first, I dont see that happening at the moment :( Lee Privett - Sent from my Laptop running XP but emulating the QL using QPC2 Snip I think what is needed is some kind of QL PR group to bombard retro computing and retrogaming websites and magazines etc with articles and information about the QL. With permissions they could update old articles with screenshots etc and use those as a staring point along with new material later on. Anything to get the word out onto the street. Peter. ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply
Geoff Wicks wrote: If we needed Quanta we would be using it. In practice the active members of Quanta represent under 10% of the UK QL community and under 5% of the international QL community. The demise of Quanta is something the QL community can survive I'd be glad if QUANTA can survive. Not only that I read and collect the printed magazine. It's still nice to know I _could_ use QUANTA, for example if I have a new QL hardware someday or in case future circumstances allow more time for the QL hobby. Somehow, QUANTA helps keeping up positive emotions by the simple fact that it is still there! Without QUANTA tradition and a last remaining classic anchor point in the QL scene, a piece of motivation for QL work would be lost. It feels very sad... Peter ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
