[wlug_org] Re: [wellylug] proposal, short !!!

[Wood Brent]

Sorry Tony et al...

Back to the org list.... I think that was my mistake, my apologies...

> 
> In general I think it is better to discuss all wellylug business online, 
> this has two advantages

Fairy nuff. As we had a proposal, & a fair amount of traffic with input from
not many, I figured offline would be easier on y'all. My tender hide must be
getting sensitive to the pricks from others :-)


> 
> >So, a proposal which I hope will resolve such issues in future before they
> >occur:
> >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  Any member or organiser of Wellylug, before initiating any activity on 
> > behalf
> >  of the LUG, must post a proposal to the org list describing the activity &
> >  their reasons. The list may respond by:
> 
> Why not just 'any member' or do we expect to have organisers who aren't 
> members?

I figured that would be a safe cover for now as we may have organisers (org
list subscribers?) who have not joined the web site. In the absence of any
agreed definition of membership, this seemed a safer bet. I'm not that
concerned tho.


> 
> 
> >  1. Giving implicit approval, by a lack of expressed concerns or by 
> > expressing
> >     support.
> 
> Um, no!  Assuming implicit approval because you don't get any concerns 
> expressed is a bit of a non-starter.  If you can't generate enough interest 
> to get people to explicitly support it then maybe it isn't something the 
> group should do.

I don't want it to empower the organisers, I want to restrict them. If a member
wants to do something & no one on the list says bad idea, they should be free
to let the main list know & see what happens. I'm surprised you feel that
everything a member wants the LUG to partake of requires the org list to
explicitly say OK. 

No big deal, if thats what the list prefers. Personally I prefer the extra
freedom/trust based approach of implicit approval. Seems more in line with the
general sentiments expressed by the wider membership about rules & such, as few
as possible & make them facilitative rather than restrictive..

> 
> >  2. Giving explicit approval of the original or modified proposal after
> some
> >     discussion on the list.
> >  3. Referring the proposal to a vote by the wider membership for approval.
> >
> >  The proposal must be posted to the full wellylug list as soon as possible
> >  upon being approved.
> >
> >  If this procedure is not followed, or approval not obtained, the activity
> >  will not be on behalf of the LUG, but will be on their own behalf.
> >+++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> >I think Jethro seconded it in his email to me, can we present it at the next
> >meeting (or have a poll prior??)
> 
> You think?  If seconding a motion/suggestion/proposal is to have any 
> meaning I think it should come direct from the seconder so there is no 
> question !! :-)

I got a "OK, go for it" from Jethro. So it had an informal agreement from
another member, off list.... hence my comment. It was not formally seconded on
list, & I didn't wanna give it that status. 

> 
> I'm not clear does (1) & (2) allow the org-list to 'approve' proposals and 
> commit the group to them?

Almost, it says if the org list doesn't disapprove/disagree/express concerns,
let the members know about it. If any members have concerns, They can let the
main list/org list know. The org list can use te same procedure to
agree/disagree & decide by concensus or refer to a wider vote before
proceeding. We could draft up a complex ratification procedure full of checks &
balances to go through, I've tried to encapsulate the status quo & keep it
simple. (which doesn't mean I got it right. If you wanna stick a timeframe on
it, so it has to be posted x days... fine, but, again, I figure we run with
trust rather than restrictions. 


> 
> Do I take it that one person demanding a proposal be voted on by the wider 
> membership is sufficient to invoke (3) ?

I think so, if one member is that concerned, I don't wanna empower the
organisers/list to say "Nope, you are wrong" & override any member, I'd sooner
that was a power only the wider group has. The most power my proposal gives is
to refer to the members if there is no concensus. My understanding of concensus
is governed in this case by past practice on the list, which seems to be a lack
of disagreement rather than majority/unanimous approval.

> 
> Apart from those niggles I think it would be good to have some basic 
> decision making procedure like this in place.  But I think perhaps we need 
> to define what 'approval' means - is this some sort of vote?  Without some 
> sort of vote who determines when a proposal has been discussed for long 
> enough and who decides when it has been approved? 
> 

If we look at past practice, since the org list/cabal were established, issues
which would have been covered by this include the installfest, website,
wellylug IRC.... in each case it was mentioned on the list, varying amounts of
discussion, generally implict go ahead. No specific individuals (or number of)
had to say "yes", what happened was that concerns were raised, discussed,
proposals were amended until no-one said no, or those who had concerns agreed
they were met. I think this worked/works well.

If we require an explicit "yes" from the list, then I agree with you, we do
need guidelines defining a "yes", & we need to vote on the list, or have an org
list poll facility or something. I don't think we need to go down that route.
The implicit approval has worked fine in the past, & I can't see a good reason
for changing.

Anyway, as I see it, a list discussion about a proposal could, under my open
guidelines, go down the path of using a list vote before proceeding, if the
list deemed it appropriate. 

Dunno if this covers your concerns?

Brent