[wellylug] Formalising WellyLUG - revisited

[JP]

 --- Wood Brent <pcreso at pcreso.com> wrote: > 
> 
> It is also intriguing how there seems to be an
> impression that any change must
> necessarily be for the worse. I can't see how a
> structural change in the
> organisation of the group will have any real impact
> on the monthly meetings,
> etc. As I see it these are the foundations to build
> on, & ensuring these are
> ongoing should be the primary goal of
> whoever/whatever runs WLUG.
> 

Well Brent, I think time will tell.  If the group is
formalised I'll challenge you to back up the claims
you are making in two years.  

I don't know what probability to give to
formalisation, but I will repeat what I said in an
earlier e-mail, which is that the those with agendas
to push will generally campaign hardest for formal
structures, since they can further their aims once
they have seniority.  People like me who simply like
using Linux are unlikely to campaign hard, and I can
assure you that if I come to next Monday's LUG, it
will be to talk Linux and not to lobby.  

While the basic idea of formalising a club doesn't
scare the shit out of me (it's just slightly
concerning), two things make this situation worse:

1) occasional cross-postings to NZOSS on this list
indicate that some of the drive for formalisation is
coming from people who are involved in some way with
thay organisation.  This has to at least raise the
possibility that the new rules are nothing more than
an NZOSS takeover of Wellylug by stealth
(excuse me while I put on my tinfoil hat).

2) this section from the new draft 'rules'
(http://wix.plaz.net.nz/lug/v5/Draft_Rules%20v5.html)
is really not making me happy:

"The Committee may expel any member from the Group if
that person’s conduct is considered, in the opinion of
the Committee, to be contrary to the good name of the
Group."

So if I decide not to wave placards when the group
walks down Lambton Quay to petition the government for
more Linux in the public service, or even worse, if I
speak out against such an action, am I out of the
club?  What about if I publicly advocate the use of
Microsoft software, or say something bad about some
Linux program or other?  The terms in the 'rules' are
so vague as to leave a lot of uncertainty -- "in the
opinion of the committee".  Clarifying the rules is
one possibility, but not without turning them into a
tome.  I favour the non-legalistic route of working
informally without rules.

I challenge all those advocating formalisation to say
what they will get out of this that they can't have by
joining the NZOSS.  

To pre-empt one discussion, I will say that the
argument that the club finds it hard to raise funds
without a formal structure is, in my opinion, very
flawed.  We have managed to get a free venue -- a very
nice one at that -- and web/e-mail hosting without a
constitution.  Fundraising for the installfest was
apparently difficult, but I think the grandiose aims
of that event were more likely to be the source of the
problem than anything else.  The very idea that we
even need funds (beyond a very small amount for modest
installfests -- I have already offerred to cough up
$100 for the next one) puzzles me.

And yes, I just responded to a troll.  More bad me.

Cheers
TB

[Previously posting using tony.booth at treasury.govt,
which was a work address, and therefore a bit naughty].

________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! India Mobile: Download the latest polyphonic ringtones.
Go to http://in.mobile.yahoo.com