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

[Jamie Baddeley]

On Sun, 2004-08-08 at 20:48, Wood Brent wrote:
> Another book by Brent for your edification & enlightenment :-) 
> 
Thanks :-) 


> 
> 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.
> 
True.

> I see no problem with proxy voting.
Neither do I. Being nitpicky, I'd ask how do we prove a proxy vote is
valid...(I suppose a meeting decision is not final until all proxies
have been checked)


> 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.
> 
Sounds good. Sounds simple. It's got my vote :-)
> 


> 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, 
Looking after it is no bother. Making something which actually looked
like a decision is what I was relieved about..

> the issue hasn't actually gone
> away.  

That's right.

> 
> 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.
> 
Great idea. Do you want to lead this discussion tomorrow night? You seem
to be able to encapsulate these issues well.

> 
> I suggest we discuss the following:
> 
> Is Wellylug going to accept donations in future, or reject any form of $$ or
> goods of any value being offered to the LUG?
> 
Heh, much debate here I suspect :-)
> 
> Then, if Wellylug agrees to never have any assets (cash or otherwise) we can
> get rid of the offending $$ 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 :-)
> 
One issue at a time, I think might be wise. Leave the IRD thing till
next time. Going down this path means you're a hop skip and a jump away
from incorporation, which is something we all voted to avoid last
time....But it is worth pointing out to those that suggest banking the
money means the issue of incorporation to deal with issues you raise
above rears it's head....(does that make sense?). I'll simplify:
bank=ird=incorporation=voted against last time.
BTW, I'm happy to be proved wrong on this one..
 

> 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.

My understanding is that we were trying to build a reasonable shortlist
of sensible options to help the members make a decision. If we
don't/can't do that then we'd need to get the members involved in every
step of any decision making process, but, as you say, the membership
expressed a clear preference not to get involved in org issues...So what
do we do then?

Cheers

jamie