[Linux-aus] Proposed Linux Australia Constitution Changes

[Silvia Pfeiffer]

On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 7:09 PM, David Newall <david at davidnewall.com> wrote:
> On 15/07/11 12:57, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>>
>> Did you even read John's original email and the changes that were made?
>
> Well, yes, of course.  Funny sort of question to be asking.
>
>> Check out :
>>
>> https://github.com/linuxaustralia/constitution/commit/7707b086bf74f1960eab7aae07a43be6837d3ca0
>> for the change that introduced the proxy votes into the re-based model
>> rules.
>
> I think you completely misunderstood what I said.  The point I made is that
> neither old nor new model constitutions completely meet our needs.  I gave
> the example of proxies, which the new one doesn't allow

You still haven't read it and you also haven't read my email or the
link that I pointed to.
All of these point out that we have proxies.

Regards,
Silvia.


> (probably the old
> didn't, either), to illustrate that we can't just use the new model without
> making extensive changes; as extensive as those we already made for our
> current constitution.
>
>
>> The council has documented all the changes that they made to bring the
>> current model rules in line with the intention of the old
>> constitution.
>
> So you say, but you're wrong.  The intention of the old constitution
> includes affiliate members. The proposed changes remove them.
>
> Have you given my words honest and open consideration?  I think not, because
> I've been on about hidden changes, and you claim that the proposal is in
> line with the current constitution which rather gives the impression that
> you never noticed there were any.
>
>
>> They have managed to solve a situation where
>> we are working under a constitution that is outdated, didn't include
>> several of the changes that the community agreed to in previous years,
>> and didn't include several of the clauses that are now required by new
>> constitutions.
>
> Here you seem ignorant of my repeated caveat that when I mention the
> "current constitution" I take it as that which is presently published on our
> web.  That constitution is not outdated, other than needing a clause stating
> what is the financial year, and it already meets the changes that were
> agreed to in previous years, as you put it.  The only thing remaining to be
> done is to lodge it!
>