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

[Tony Wills]

--=======12CB3847=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-62717D0F; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

At 01:48 8/08/04 -0700, Brent wrote:
>I personally do not at all like the idea of major decisions being made by
>online poll.
>...
>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 ...

I have two counter points:
1) Meetings are intimidating for some (ok for me!) and although I'm happy 
to formulate and voice opinions on-line I have a much harder time in a 
'rapid-fire' discussion.  At meetings it tends to be those most vocal and 
eloquent who voice their opinions and sway the masses.  If people have time 
to reflect on the discussion they may see the folly of the argument that 
swayed them.
(Why aren't national election candidates allowed to campaign outside 
polling booths?)

2) Having an acute lack of structure we have an acute lack of record taking 
at meetings so an acute lack of documentation about our decisions (how and 
why they were made, and by whom).
Online discussion and voting is self documenting and available for all to 
review at any time.


>... replace screeds of emails (which I can well do without, & I'm sure 
>Michael & others don't need more of my books :-)

Emails are easy to ignore, trash, delete, filter (spindle and mutilate)

>... proxy voting....

Is of course an option

>  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.

We don't need to merge the lists, a simple notification on the main list 
that a poll has been started should be sufficient.  [And note, the wlug_org 
list is not just for 'cabal' discussions at all, it is for discussions that 
are Off Topic for the main list, but discussions for any who wish to 
participate - of course the 'cabal' are more gabby than most ;-)].
The discussions on wlug_org are open and available to all, if people choose 
not to participate they'll probably get what they deserve :-) .  Requiring 
an actual majority of active members vote for an issue should be sufficient 
to ensure validity.

>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.

Yep, sounds fine.  Do you want to put this motion to the Monday 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.

I'm in full agreement.

>As I said before, Wellylug is gonna get some $$ thrown at it from time to 
>time.
>...
>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.
>...
>then we formally agree how such assets are to managed as LUG
>assets (this need only be a guideline :-)

Good idea.

>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.

That was also the essence of Jamie Dobbs comments posted to the poll webpage.

I agree we need a much broader and considered array of options.  I'm not 
sure that it would be a good idea to vote on which actual option to go for 
during a meeting.  I'd prefer that a meeting came up with a variety of 
options and then the options were voted upon using the website poll after 
more detailed study and discussion. (Unless of course there were only a 
couple to choose between).

>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.

You have a funny idea of the power of the 'cabal', I'd say that as things 
stand the 'cabal' has no power and can't actually do anything without 
agreement of the members.  The members did not decide to have a 
dictatorship instead of a constitution and committee.   The whole point of 
the non-structure was so that we didn't end up with an exclusive committee 
who had been granted the power to effectively do what they please (as often 
happens on elected committees where there is not a very active 
membership).  The members certainly have every right to say what should be 
done and can over ride any decision made by the 'cabal' (they may of course 
have a hard time getting any redress in the courts if we burn their money, 
but then a quick slap to the side of the head should stop us doing it again ;-)

(Now where's the minutes of that meeting ;p )  As I recall!, the meeting at 
which this non-structure was created, said thems who want to help organise 
things go over to that corner and sort things out.
No one was elected to any position, every member is eligible to participate 
in organising things hence anyone and everyone in the group has the right 
to say stop!  It's just that for the most part they've said go do it and 
don't bother us (much), not that they've given away any power (they've 
granted us free run of the place to clean the floors, take out the trash, 
and wash the dishes, they haven't given us the land title).  If the 
organising group does anything to annoy the membership, it's the organising 
group that gives way!!

I think that a certain one of we had better stop using the term 'cabal' 
lest it goes to his head.

Cheers ;-)

--=======12CB3847=======--