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

[Wood Brent]

Jethro spake:

> Idea:
> 
> 1) We could you the electronic voting to do a 'pre' vote, which gets the
> public opinion to the org list. 
> 
> 2) Then at the meeting, say '78% of people on the poll agreed to option
> x. Do you wish to use option x or option y, which had 25%? Comments?'
> 
> 3) Then do a meeting hand count.
> 
> The benfits are that ideas that no one wants are revealed, and the most
> popular ideas are shown. It's also secure, as the final decision is at
> the meeting, the poll just gets what people feel, which saves our time,
> by getting the ideas into the open, and lets people think about them.
> 
> What do you think?

Does this spread things a bit wide/thin??

Org list discussion AND website poll AND wellylug list summary/info/discussion
AND meeting discussion AND meeting vote?

Can we aim for simplicity? Too much to ask for?
If so then let's try to KISS (& make up :-)

Can we agree that a vote at a meeting will be will be the final decision? 

Let the cabal/org list decide on the use of online & other facilities as we
feel appropriate. I know this relies heavily on the trust vs formality
approach, but some issues might need a vote after tossing around the org list a
bit, others might need much more consideration. Some we might decide to leave
for now & not even get to a vote.

Do we incorporate? and Which presentation do we have this month? are of vastly
different significance to the UG. Surely we shouldn't have the same process
required to be followed for both & to define a process for each different
category of issue, and a process to define how we work out which category the
issue being considered lies in, ....

I would hope we could have quick & simple as well as slow, considered &
thorough decision making processes available, as well as organisers both
trusted & competent to discuss & decide how best the membership should be
involved and informed pre meeting/voting. So we can use any approach or
combination that makes sense for the issue at steak (and getting back to food,
decide what or if we are gonna eat :-) We can use lists, polls, chat, emails,
meetings discussions, meeting voting as we see fit right now. Why do we need a
rule to say how it should be done?

Maybe we could have summat saying we need a concensus on the org list as to how
best to proceed, to prevent any individual preempting things...

If we get it wrong, as it ALWAYS comes down to a members' vote anyway, the most
likely result will a membership decision that we/they are not ready to vote &
we need to rework the motion or provide more info to them, or throw the whole
thing awawy coz they don't want it. So if the cabal makes an error of judgement
(unlikely with such a high calibre of members), it doesn't really impact on the
LUG anyway.

If we CAN agree to this, then (IMHO) this is actually the status quo. We can
prob wrap some words around it & get a vote to agree to it, but if that is what
we agree, isn't a vote to implement a rule to say we have to keep on doing it
just the way we are a waste of time? (basically imposing formality for its own
sake)

So, for those that read this far, 


I hereby suggest that:

The org list members [and cabal] agree that the final say regarding any LUG
issue will be a meeting based vote of the members.

The means of ensuring the members are best informed and involved in the
discussions and decision making process(es) prior to the actual vote will be by
concensus of the org list (which anyone can join!)

Can we have agreement on this? 


If so, we can tick it off & get onto the next step: ie, what is a member?   :-)


Brent