[wlug_org] Online Voting & Wellylug monies etc....

[Wood Brent]

Another book by Brent for your edification & enlightenment :-) 


I personally do not at all like the idea of major decisions being made by
online poll.

The main reason is that one of the mainstays of democratic decisions is
dialogue & discussion.

I know many times I have changed my opinion before casting a vote, due to well
put arguments which convinced me. I don't believe the entire membership can get
as much out of a web based discussion as a debate at a meeting. While
considered points can be made well on the list, a rapid fire discussion between
people at a meeting can IMHO, in a few minutes replace screeds of emails (which
I can well do without, & I'm sure Michael & others don't need more of my books
:-)

While a good list debate prior to a meeting is certainly very valuable, it
shouldn't replace open dialogue at a meeting. If someone can't make a meeting &
desires to vote, I see no problem with proxy voting. The membership at large
has shown a clear preference not to get involved with org issues. If we are
going to require them to do so by effectively moving wlug_org to wellylug so
the cabal discussions are fully open & shared, I think there will be more than
a few resignations from the wellylug list. Members don't seem opposed to a
debate & vote at a meeting, at least not from the one's I've attended.

If anyone disagrees, then I suggest we use the currently accepted approach of 
working through the issues on the org list, then have a general vote at a
meeting before deciding among ourselves that a poll or online voting in some
way, should replace the current system. But we need to use the currently
accepted system to making the decision- a vote at a meeting.


On the subject that started this, WellyLUG & $$, while I'm happy that the $$
get spent as the members prefer, I'm not happy that there seems to be a desire
to spend the $$ simply because Wellylug shouldn't have/doesn't need money.

As I said before, Wellylug is gonna get some $$ thrown at it from time to time.

I'd like to see some sort of decision about how this should be handled as a
general case. While Jamie breathed a sigh of relief at the idea of spending it
on food, so he doesn't have to look after it, the issue hasn't actually gone
away.  

IMHO your head's in the sand if you believe that if we spend the $$ we have
right now on a meal the issue of Wellylug & $$ has been solved for eternity. So
solve the general situation, then apply the solution to the current instance,
otherwise next time we go through the whole exercise again. (I'm sure there is
a good programming paradigm to this effect :-)

So ask the membership, how do you want the cabal to manage any LUG assets? What
general approach do you want taken? So we can decide what to do based on a
expressed membership preference, not just ours.


I suggest we discuss the following:

Is Wellylug going to accept donations in future, or reject any form of $$ or
goods of any value being offered to the LUG?


Then, if Wellylug agrees to never have any assets (cash or otherwise) we can
get rid of the offending $$ as we agree, (note- the decision to reject
donations is surely implementing a very rigid RULE!!!!) otherwise-

If Wellylug is going to accept donations of cash (or books or anything else
which has some cash value- note that as I understand it any material asset is
substantively equivalent to its cash value according to IRD; eg: check on how
it treats barter), then we formally agree how such assets are to managed as LUG
assets (this need only be a guideline :-)

We then at least have a guideline as to how we should handle the assets ($$) we
have right now, as well as in the future. Right now we don't really have
anything but some cabal opinions. We are deciding what options we will let the
members choose from and telling them how LUG $$ will be spent, not asking. That
IMHO is not what the cabal should be doing. 

A good reason for rules limiting the power of a committee. Right now, we can do
whatever we like with the $$, members actually have no right to a say, unless
we choose to let them. That's why I stick with the term cabal, it actually
describes our role relatively well.


Brent