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

[Jethro Carr]

Sounds okay, except:

1) Under those rules, I would have to get permission from the lug
whenever I changed something on the website. (which is quite often).
This would obvously be impratical.

2) I think we should use the poll to get a pre-vote, to gauge what most
people think, and then do a vote at the next meeting.


Apart from that it sounds okay...

On Sat, 2004-08-14 at 09:51, Wood Brent wrote:
> 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
-- 
-- Jethro

dodocaptain at paradise.net.nz

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/jethroc
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/jethroc/cv.html

http://www.wellylug.org.nz