On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 23:50:29 -0400 (EDT)
Benjamin Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For the record: (1) Personally, I'm actually in favor of formal
> incorporation, provided we "do it right". (2) I don't think anyone here is
> actually trying to "grab power", but I am very worried that oth
Hello,
Not quite. Actually, I've been very public in speaking to people at the
LUGs about it - and, for that matter, to anyone that could listen,
including a number of other nonprofits in New Hampshire. The reaction
has been very positive, both from GNHLUG members and others. If I've
been kee
[My apologies if you receive this twice. My mailer burped on the first
attempt and I'm not sure if it went through or not.]
*** NOTE: I've added the -org list to the recipients. ***
My primary concern with all of this is that it has occurred largely in
private. Sure, we haven't tri
On 10/14/05, Ed Lawson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 10:31:41 -0400 Bill Sconce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> (I'm personally interested that the "DBA" is not a good idea,
>
> OK, I admit to being curt if not lacking in common curtesy ...
While it may have been brief, there
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 10:31:41 -0400
Bill Sconce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(I'm personally interested that the "DBA" is not a good idea,
OK, I admit to being curt if not lacking in common curtesy, but
when I'm busy I get that way. The term DBA stands for "doing
business as" and only applies to
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 21:56:26 -0400
Ed Lawson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Star wrote:
>
> >There really is an easy answer to the "protection of name" point: For less
> >than $100 ($75, I believe) someone can register it as a DBA ("Doing Business
> >As..", no relation to Oracle).
> >
> >
> For r
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 21:56:26 -0400
Ed Lawson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Star wrote:
>
> >There really is an easy answer to the "protection of name" point: For less
> >than $100 ($75, I believe) someone can register it as a DBA ("Doing Business
> >As..", no relation to Oracle).
> >
> >
> For r
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> The way I use it is, "I don't believe this to be true but there's a chance
> somebody might possibly have this perspective."
I would take offense no matter who said it.
md
--
Jon "maddog" Hall
Executive Director Linux International(R)
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED
Star wrote:
There really is an easy answer to the "protection of name" point: For less
than $100 ($75, I believe) someone can register it as a DBA ("Doing Business
As..", no relation to Oracle).
For reasons that I will not get into there are many reasons why this is
unnecessary and not a par
There really is an easy answer to the "protection of name" point:
For less than $100 ($75, I believe) someone can register it as a DBA
("Doing Business As..", no relation to Oracle). Simply put,
without anything in the way of dollars in, it wouldn't affect anyone as
a tax burden. Choose one of t
> I believe there are reasons other than closure for incorporation. A
> few are:
>
> ~* Defensive - prevent someone from usurping our [good] name.
> ~* Ease - so we can more easily secure gifts, meeting places, and
> ~ sponsorship.
> ~* Structure - so we know what we are doing and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Star wrote:
| Speaking as someone who's essentially a list-lurker, and only
| recently has been able devote the necessary mind share to even show
| up at a local meeting and read through the mail-lists, it is
| pretty obvious that the "group" as a w
Speaking as someone who's essentially a list-lurker, and only recently
has been able devote the necessary mind share to even show up at a
local meeting and read through the mail-lists, it is pretty obvious
that the "group" as a whole does, in fact, have a central cadre of
volunteers that act as the
On Oct 12, 2005, at 03:26, Jon maddog Hall wrote:
No, I don't have to take ownership of the title 'power-mad despot'. I
take
offense that someone suggests such a concept, whether under the guise
of
"Devil's Advocate" or not.
I guess we have different understandings of what "Devil's Advocate
> > You'd have to take ownership of the title 'power-mad despot' to take
> > offense
> > at that. My point was we don't have any. Or are you volunteering? ;)
>
> No, I don't have to take ownership of the title 'power-mad despot'. I take
> offense that someone suggests such a concept, whether
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> You'd have to take ownership of the title 'power-mad despot' to take offense
> at that. My point was we don't have any. Or are you volunteering? ;)
No, I don't have to take ownership of the title 'power-mad despot'. I take
offense that someone suggests such a concep
On 10/12/05, Bill McGonigle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Oct 12, 2005, at 02:47, Jon maddog Hall wrote:
>
> >> If people did send along
> >> their desires to remain unorganized it was repressed by our power-mad
> >> despots.
> >
> > I will take offense at that statement for the rest of the gro
On 10/12/05, Ted Roche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There was no effort to hide anything. On the contrary.
Again: I am not accusing anyone of hiding anything.
>> Now, I can only speak for myself, but I don't recall any
>> announcements regarding incorporation or adoption of bylaws at
>> recen
On Oct 12, 2005, at 02:47, Jon maddog Hall wrote:
If people did send along
their desires to remain unorganized it was repressed by our power-mad
despots.
I will take offense at that statement for the rest of the group.
You'd have to take ownership of the title 'power-mad despot' to take
o
On Oct 11, 2005, at 11:50 PM, Benjamin Scott wrote:
Suggestion #1: Electronic discussions involving organizational
matters should always happen on the -org list. No ifs, ands, or
buts. Whether it is a motion to incorporate, an idea for a
project, a status report, or a misspelling t
Bill,
> Devil's Advocate:
> Even if 51% of the GNHLUG-discuss list said, "gee, I'd rather we didn't
> incorporate," we would anyway.
I think that the damage that would be done to the GNHLUG group if that happened
would be very greatand it would be a shame. Likewise I think that going
On 10/12/05, Kevin D. Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyways, can somebody please just send an email to the list detailing
> what the issue is? All I've gotten so far is a vague notion of
> "bylaws".
Thanks for making my point for me, Kevin. :-)
My initial reaction, when I was brought i
On Oct 11, 2005, at 23:50, Benjamin Scott wrote:
So before we submit a set of bylaws for approval, I think we should
first poll *EVERYONE* for their feelings on this. I realize it is
hard to have a vote when we don't have a formal existence, but we can
do more then what we have.
Devil's
On 10/12/05, Kevin D. Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyways, can somebody please just send an email to the list detailing
> what the issue is? All I've gotten so far is a vague notion of
> "bylaws".
I will attempt to summarize the discussion so far. I will try to be
objective, but in the
I sent an email to a few trusted friends, to ask some advice on how
to present the question on incorporating as a non-profit to the
group. That email got out of hand, spread to too many people, and
splattered onto the list. Obviously, I've got to reconsider my methods.
On Oct 12, 2005, at 2
Benjamin Scott writes:
>In other words, if the concern is that some might accuse us of
>being a cabal, we should make every effort to make everyone aware
>of what is going on at every step of the process.
That's no way to run a cabal! Gheesh.
Anyways, can somebody please just send
[I've dropped the individual addresses, as all the recipients are (I am pretty
sure) on the -org list.]
On Oct 12 at 12:22am, David J Berube wrote:
Actually, I've been very public in speaking to people at the LUGs about it
...
Be sure: *I am not accusing you or anyone else of trying to hi
27 matches
Mail list logo
