Several attendees at past quarterly activists meetings have expressed
interest in reviving this topic. And maddog's recent postings on the
Gould Academy get-together also point to the advantages of having a
non-profit structure.
GNHLUG is in a indefinite position, as it has no legal
Excellent [re-]start Ted. Thanks for remembering this!
Ted Roche wrote:
...
I have a few ideas about how I'd like to structure the organization.
This is just one guy's opinion and I'd welcome constructive criticism.
The main things I am trying to build in here are: representation,
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 13:41:00 -0400
Bruce Dawson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Excellent [re-]start Ted. Thanks for remembering this!
Indeed. Of course the age old problem still exists. Since
everyone wants to be as egalitarian as our roots require (and I
essentially agree with this view),
Ted Roche wrote:
On Apr 18, 2006, at 2:17 PM, Ed Lawson wrote:
Sounds like a good topic to merge with a quarterly summer meeting with
a key-signing party and a summer cookout, eh?
Eh? (My ears perk up.) I guess I need to firm up my summer schedule.
Speaking of cat herding... Sigh.
--Bruce
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 15:40:12 -0400
Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we're going to go before
anyone and say we represent GNHLUG, we have to make sure we
actually
*DO* represent GNHLUG. That means everyone has to agree with
everything we're pushing (more or less).
Not in response to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
1. All chapters have a representative in the executive council. (What's a
chapter? We'll let the governing body decide, perhaps by drafting
regulations, perhaps by vote on a case-by-case basis.)
2. Two or more at large members can serve, bringing the total count
On 4/18/06, Ed Lawson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not in response to the merits of what Ben has suggested, but only
to point out that one often under appreciated and misunderstood
feature of a democracy is that the majority rules.
Indeed, and not just
On 4/18/06, Jon maddog Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As to Ben's input ...
I think that general guidelines of We believe in Free and Open Source
Software and its use is a pretty general idea and leaves lots of room
open for advocacy.
General ideas tend to get bogged down when the details
On Apr 18, 2006, at 2:52 PM, Bruce Dawson wrote:
Ah ha! You're suggesting a Senate to go with the Representatives!
Senates *are* good balances to the sometimes mob rule of
representative government, but maybe we could have two forms of
representative - one representing the constituents and one
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I don't understand. I thought one of the reasons for seeking (c)(3) status
was so that contributions would be tax-deductible. ??
Sure, *if* you can get 501(c)3 status. What I am telling you is that several
tax-lawyers I know are telling me that 501(c)3 status is
Ted Roche wrote:
On Apr 18, 2006, at 2:52 PM, Bruce Dawson wrote:
Ah ha! You're suggesting a Senate to go with the Representatives!
Senates *are* good balances to the sometimes mob rule of
representative government, but maybe we could have two forms of
representative - one representing the
On Apr 18, 2006, at 3:40 PM, Ben Scott wrote:
I believe that, when it comes to advocacy, there should be legal
entity separate from GNHLUG.
To my mind, GNHLUG is an organization that provides an infrastructure
for members to meet, confer, network and create projects. Advocacy
for or
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 14:12:41 -0400
Ted Roche [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmmm... wonder if anyone on this list is familiar with maintaining
voter lists.
Oh oh.
___
gnhlug-org mailing list
gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org
Well, I sat out the two iterations on this topic, at least as far as the
following idea is concerned. It was a problem of personalities in the past,
but perhaps the people in question are no longer (deeply) involved. If you
know about *current* problems and don't want to publicize them, please at
14 matches
Mail list logo
