[ale] Re: Bylaws v0.20

[Greg Sabino Mullane]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

(If I don't address a point Pat or Art raised, consider that 
my agreement with their view.)


> The "substantial part" is open for interpretation... IMO, all political
> activities should be VERY minor to the main mission. In the case of the SSSCA,
> we should take a vote if the LUG wants to lobby against it... if yes, we should
> appoint a minor sub-commitee/SIG (err no vigilanties) to research ways to do
> this & report back to the group to consider their recommendations. These
> recommendations can be carried out by the SIG, and when the issue is resolved
> the SIG goes away. By keeping these things in the background, we can focus on
> Linux/OSS education, advocacy, and support... still meeting those "No
> substantial part" requirements.

Excellent points. I did some research, and found a page that 
explains what "lobbying" is, although they do not clear up 
what is "substantial." I agree, though, that education and 
helping each other out should be our main concern. I just don't 
want to see all lobbying shut out. In short, I am completely 
happy with the "substantial" wording as it is. :)

http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/plain/forms_pubs/pubs/p5570308.htm
 
> That's my interpretation too, we need a minimum of 3 Officers. I've invited
> several people to help out with Secretary & Treasury duties, our needs are
> becoming greater/urgent and if those already enlisted can't find the time... we
> need to spread it out among those who have the time & skills. Hope I haven't
> stepped on anyones toes, we should iron this out soon & put it to a vote. Having
> regular Official elections is part of the organization process.

I still maintain it's a lot of work for one person, especially 
in light of the light duties assigned to the other officers. 
Plus, just from an integrity/accountability standpoint, I'd like 
to separate the functions of "watcher of the money" and 
"keeper of all the rules, regulations, and meeting notes." :)

> > I disagree.  I figure that we won't get these bylaws right the first time,
> > so initially we should make them easy to change.  Later, we can amend
> > the amendment rule and increase the threshold once a good baseline of
> > rules have been established.  Until then, >50% sounds better to me.
> 
> Amendments are inevitable, ...live, learn & grow.

Nope, I disagree. If we find something about the bylaws we wish 
to change right away, getting 2/3 of the people to agree on 
such a change should not be a problem. Again, why make a change 
to our bylaws if 9 out of 20 people at a meeting disagree with 
the change? Good amendments should garner almost 100% support, 
after all.

The rest of it sounds good. More input from others is welcome.


Greg Sabino Mullane
greg at turnstep.com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200110240943
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: http://www.turnstep.com/pgp.html

iQA/AwUBO9bFwbybkGcUlkrIEQIG/ACfXNANB8r48LNi+LvtB4IVo0RXHoAAoLk1
cd9omgFUNKL/mIx6oOH9S2Ds
=jwRE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



---
This message has been sent through the ALE general discussion list.
See http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml for more info. Problems should be 
sent to listmaster at ale dot org.