[Linux-aus] Re: Constitution Version 6

[Leon Brooks]

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 16:34, Bret Busby wrote:
> Okay; how do you stop the political aspects - committee members
> saying "he is a mate of mine - lets give him a HLM (Honorary Lifetime
> Membership) - I don't like that one, lets not give her an HLM"?

By voting in a variety of Committemen. For example, if you were to vote 
for Jeff Waugh, he'd be an excellent balance for some of my impetuosity 
(as is Anand) if I'm re-elected. If you were to re-elect Pia Smith, 
you'd maintain a feminine presence here. You could stand yourself.

> And, who is to assess who is deserving and who is not, and, using
> what criteria?

Well, evidently not Bret Busby, who has not nominated or been seconded 
and so can't be elected.

> Would it be the person(s) who make the most noise about what they do,
> or the people about whom no-one hears anything of what they do?

Yes, maybe, no. All and none of the above. AFAICT, neither of our 
current candidates fit either profile. If it were so simple, we could 
write it into the Constitution antead of making value judgements in 
Committee.

> I am reminded of an issue regarding the awarding of VC's in the
> second world war - from memory, only one VC was awarded to a maori,
> and, that was posthumous, and yet, apparently, the maori battalionm
> was feared by both sides, and did a heap of damage to the enemy. But,
> they were the maori, and not worth VC's, or so it appeared.

AFAICT there are no Maoris on Committee. Since I don't know half of the 
current nominees, that may change. Don't expect us to second a score of 
people whose only qualification is ethnicity if not. (-:

> Many people make quite worthwhile contributions, and, use much of
> their time, for the benefit of others.

HLM is not an attempt to reward all of them, just people with 
significant contributions *to*LA*.

> So, who is going to say who should, and who should not, get one of
> these HLM awards, and, using what criteria?

Up to now, the Committee. That's what we're here for. If you want to 
forcibly change what we do, get yourself elected or at least make 
*positive* suggestions on a case-by-case basis. For example, you could 
write to committee@ and suggest people who have contributed enough 
*to*LA* to warrant HLM.

> In the end, it will be like parliament and the feral awards - perks
> for mates of those in power, with nothing for those who quietly go
> on, helping others and making their contributions.

I note that you are not going on quietly, which brings me great relief 
as it implies that we've not overlooked you for anything. (-:

> We will have a ruling elite - an upper class in the Australian Linux
> community, with these HLM's - perks for mates of the committee. - No
> question about it.

I don't feel very upper class. How would I tell if I'd slipped into 
elitism?

> Okay, and, what voting rights, do people not at the conference have?

Following the SGM, the same as any other member.

> Can people not at the conference, become committee members, or
> office-bearers?

Yes. IIRC, that's constitutional right now, but if not now then soon. As 
I understand it, nominating before close of trade tomorrow will be 
valid by the AGM if it isn't already.

> What can people who are not at the conference, do, 
> that they cannot do, if they are not members? Can they particpate in
> debates at the SGM and AGM?

Ring up a mate who's attending. No worries.

What kind of participation did you have in mind? Beating back the 
Elitist barbarian hordes, or something less political?

> What does being a member, mean, and, what does it mean for both
> members who attend the conference, and, for members who do not attend
> the conference?

There's enough on http://linux.org.au/ to define membership in more 
detail than fits in an email.

> That appears to have gone by the wayside, as the committee could
> have more power, by requiring physical presence.

Can I recommend a thicker, stronger brand of tinfoil?

Speaking only for myself, I have no interest in bossing people around. 
Tridge and Hugh are stepping down, which doesn't sound too power-hungry 
to me. If we were going to surgery the paperwork to cement our power 
base, why would we leave things so we are forced to submit to election 
in the same fashion as anyone else? Why not amend things so that our 
offices are immortal?

> Why can't the SGM and the AGM, all be conducted, via the Internet?

Because LA's Constitution does not (yet) allow it.

> Why can't the elections, be performed, via the Internet?

Ditto. Read The Fine Minutes, we're fixing that.

> And, what happens, for example, if a WA member has an issue about the
> operation of the organisation?

He mails committee@ just like anyone else. Or talks to his local 
representative - me. 0409655359

Cheers; Leon

-- 
http://cyberknights.com.au/     Modern tools; traditional dedication
http://plug.linux.org.au/       Committee Member, Perth Linux User Group
http://slpwa.asn.au/            Committee Member, Linux Professionals WA
http://linux.org.au/            Committee Member, Linux Australia