[wlug_org] $$$ to spend etc (was Individual liability from notbeing incorporated)

[Wood Brent]

--- Michael Dittmer <michael.dittmer@paradise.net.nz> wrote:

> I'll second it Jamie
> 
> Hereby seconded!!!
> 
> Now can we move on??? 

Almost, just one point I'd like to clarify, which of course requires another
book (or at least a chapter :-)

> I support Brents suggestions completely with the addition of a more
> managed (i.e org_team agrees on the contents of the poll prior to) use
> of the poll/voting system (complete with web based user authentication)
> as a form of "market research" to assist us in determining the views of
> the LUG prior to an real_issue vote. This information is the input of
> those who for what ever reason are not motivated to join the org_list,
> BUT do have an opinion.
> 
> I move we adopt Brent's suggestion, plus Jethro's suggestion number 1.
> 
> who'll second me?

Question: Do you mean that for every issue we believe a membership/meeting vote
is necessary, there MUST be a website poll first? That is how I read your
amendment, Jamie. My apologies if I'm wrong (& if I'm wrong, then most of the
rest of this msg is pretty much irrelevent, please skip to the incorporation
bit at the bottom - chapter two - & delete chapter 1 from any replies!!!)


Note that such a requirement (even without my time requirements below) will
mean that anything raised at a meeting CANNOT be voted on at the time, as the
poll must be held first.

Given the poll only really gives us an idea of how members feel on an issue, it
seems redundant to do this twice every time, as that is just what the vote
does, only we seem to have agreed the vote is what counts (pun intended :-)

I see the poll as a useful device to give the cabal direction, but not as an
online vote which we have to go through before a meeting vote. So I regarded it
as implicit in my original suggestion that it was there to be used if we saw
fit. 

If this was your intent, do we actually need to explicitly say this? It seems
to me the explicit change is actually different to the status quo, which
doesn't specify anything, so 'tis a new guideline wot needs to be set down
clearly in writing & voted on... does it not? 

Agreeing to the use of online polls if [we] think it appropriate is simply the
status quo, so doesn't even need formal membership's approval, we just tick it
off & can move on. At least I'm happy with that interpretation of the status
quo.

So, I'm happy for the use of a poll where the org list concensus is so. I'm not
sure a RULE requiring it's use for every case is appropriate, esp in a group
where we do try to keep such rigid restrictions to the minimum. I can see half
a dozen polls pre meeting, one for each issue etc.



If we agree on this list that such a specific requirement is needed by the LUG,
I'll trundle on with the majority, but after some consideration, I'm ONLY happy
to support a poll as a requirement IF suitable notification & a reasonable
timeframe are also required. If we are going to have the poll as a requirement,
I think we need to ensure the membership is fully informed about it and in a
timely fashion.

And all this will become something voted on & recorded & stored as a rule? :-)

(end of chapter 1)

(Chapter 2)

> 
> jamie	
> (I also think the wellylug.inc issue can be comfortably deferred)

Does anyone here feel differently?

Does this constitute a seconding? If this is the concensus, we need (after the
discussion last meeting) to put some words together for a note to the wellylug
list saying this (& describing why). To support Jamie's paradigm that as it was
my idea, I get do it, I'm happy to write a book for that purpose :-)

Any seconders?


Brent