[wlug_org] $$$ to spend etc (was Individual liability from not being incorporated)

[Wood Brent]

--- Jamie Baddeley <jamie.baddeley@vpc.co.nz> wrote:

> this is useful discussion.

Hmm... I see an implication about other posts here.....

> I am now starting to think that a policy of "we vote at meetings" may be
> useful. This will drive up meeting attendance and increase social
> interaction. It also provides a simple way of determining who is a
> member. All that would remain is some careful thinking around proxies.
> (or we could just take a hardline, and say : make it to the meeting)
> 
> Personally speaking I'm tend to be in favour of policies that encourage
> social interaction.

OK, no list or website. The IRC can stay however, the immediacy is close
enough.
And does this mean you wanna see more of us? :-) Just how social do you wanna
get?

> 
> Having said this, I also see the value of electronic voting.

Well said. There are pros & cons to both. That's why it is contentions,
opinions vary & we go in circles. 

I think there is a background issue we should bear in mind, that is: Who
decides what the cabal can do without a vote & what issues require a vote?

Right now the cabal is trusted to make this decision... and the safe approach
is simply to refer pretty much everything back. I think the meeting
discussion/vote is a better model for this less formal situation. 

As I see it, the core questions: Are members happy with the current vote at
meetings approach, or would an online voting system be preferred?

In either case: Do we really need to & if so, how do we determine membership (&
thereby also specify non-membership)?

I think we should have clear way of determining who is/isn't a member. BUT,
this needs to a simple/trivial method, which is available to people at meetings
(pref Wgtn & Hutt), installfests, & other LUG events. It certainly should be
available prior to any voting, so anyone wishing to vote can get the right to
vote if they need/want to. (Assuming membership & voting rights are hand in
hand) 

> 
> I guess it may come down to this:
> 
> do we want a large widely spread and loosely coupled lug or a smaller
> more tightly knit one? 

Are they exclusive? I'd like to think a reasonable approach supprting both
roles for the lug is possible.

List based discussion, email proxies & meeting votes surely can provide a nice
facilitative mix encompassing both?

Polls can provide fun, interesting & useful info as to what members like/want/
prefer (& don't), but I'm far from convinced they are the best forum for
binding votes. Way too prescriptive & open to manipulation. 

(Have you stopped beating your wife yet?   Y  N)


Brent