[wellylug] RE: [wlug_org] $$$ to spend etc (was Individual liability from notbeing incorporated)

[Wood Brent]

Sorry Jethro....

> > The reason why we have moved and seconded this is because that seemed
> > like a reasonable way to say "right we roughly agree, let's move on"
> > 
> > Rough consensus. Which is what I think and hope we have.
> 
> I agree.
> 
> Jamie, Michael, Brent agree?

As usual, Brent is being pedantic & obstructive & despite being the author of
what Jamie sort of proposed, strongly disagrees :-)

I have a fair bit of explanation for why, but a pretty short, hopefully concise
& appropriate, proposal to replace Jamie's. You be the judge.

As this is all about imposing a written guideline on the LUG, which both the
organisers & members have very strongly agreed to avoid wherever possible, I
believe we do need to consider it very carefully. 

So please look at exactly what Jamie proposed, & compare it with this proposal
before deciding.


I think the idea that we have a guideline to specify responsibility for a poll
on the website is ludicrous, when we have virtually no guidelines for any other
aspect of operating the LUG. IMHO this is such a small, petty topic to have our
first self inflicted written guideline, formally proposed, seconded & approved
on the list. It's laughable, incongruous, petty beauracracy, unworthy of the
LUG. Your opinion may differ :-)

The original issue was regarding a member taking an action on behalf of the LUG
without any approval from the cabal/org list/membership. What the action was is
irrelevant, and implementing a rule addressing that single action is like
taking a Panadol to stop the pain from an ulcer & saying "Wonderful, my ulcer
is cured!"

The real, underlying issue is over some sort of ratification for ANY action
taken by ANY member(s) _ON BEHALF OF THE LUG_. Much of the recent discussion on
incorporation & liability also concerned this issue, so here is (hopefully) a
generic proposal to cover the poll & liability issue in the wider sense, so we
don't have separate guidelines for polls, followed by new ones for every other
aspect when something goes a bit wrong.

Basically, do it once & get it right first time.

My suggestion, as this attempted cover-all:

(I know membership & voting are not explicitly defined anywhere, & we may need
to address that, but the staus quo seems to work for now & I'mm assuming that
is adequate for this)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Any member or organiser of Wellylug, before initiating any activity on behalf
of the LUG, must post a proposal to the org list describing the activity &
their reasons. The list may respond by:

1. Giving implicit approval, by a lack of expressed concerns or by expressing 
   support.
2. Giving explicit approval of the original or modified proposal after some 
   discussion on the list.
3. Referring the proposal to a vote by the wider membership for approval.

The proposal must be posted to the full wellylug list as soon as possible upon
being approved.

If this procedure is not followed, or approval not obtained, the activity will
not be on behalf of the LUG, but will be on their own behalf. 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

My reasons for this approach; 

This provides a limited liability protection for members, in terms of any
activities organised on behalf of the LUG, in that any such must have at least
org list approval, or they are explicitly only the individual's, not the LUG's
responsibility.

It only covers activities explicitly on behalf of the LUG. Nothing else. 

The basic web site operation has actually already gone through this process,
with Jethro getting feedback & direction as he progressed. if the problem poll
had also, it wouldn't have been a problem, so I believe this covers
Jamie's/Jethro's proposal as well.

In fact, I think this procedure pretty much describes how things work now, it
simply wraps some words around the status quo, so there is something for
members to follow. (It is pretty much the procedure we used for organising the
installfest, where it worked very well IMHO). 

A discussion via IRC or over lunch, where some members have what they think is
a good idea, is already covered just like the poll. A msg to the org list
saying "Hey, we thought this was a good idea, OK to follow it up?" is all that
is needed. We don't need yet another guideline to address yet another possible
problem where members indulge in unapproved activities (Shame!!!).

If the org list desires changes to the proposal before it goes ahead, the
proposal can be amended via discussion on the list before being approved.

The org list cannot STOP any member from doing anything on behalf of the LUG.
The most they can do is refer it back to the members if they have any concerns.

The org list can approve an activity or refer it back to the members as it sees
fit. This seems in line with the initial setting up of the cabal & org list,
along the lines of "OK, those who wanna try to run things can go ahead. Try not
to bother the rest of us."

The wording clearly limits the powers of the organisers, and, given that the
org list is open to all members, allows every member to have as much say as
they like on any issue, up to requiring a membership vote to decide.

The full membership must be told (via the wellylug list) what is being done (on
their behalf, remember) before it goes ahead. (I figure if this gets any
negative feedback, the org list can go through a similar procedure to revoke
approval within a few hours)

The whole "trust" thing we operate under should make the approval of anything
remotely contentious by the org list pretty unlikely, it will almost certainly
be put to a vote rather than being approved anyway.


Perhaps most importantly, it actually formally invests responsibility in the
list, rather than a cabal comprising presentation guy, install guy, etc. So
rather than a cabal, we have a fully OPEN group of members explicitly in charge
of LUG activities. Personally I think this would be pretty cool!


Any seconders to this proposal?



Happy reading :-)

  Brent