<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><br></div>Hmmm…<div><br><div><div>On 25/04/2012, at 12:50 PM, James Polley wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 12:46 PM, David Lloyd <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lloy0076@adam.com.au" target="_blank">lloy0076@adam.com.au</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex; position: static; z-index: auto; "><br>
Call a special general meeting to change the organisation's name? You lot seem to want it, quit talking the talk and just walk the walk... </blockquote><div><br></div><div>There's no point calling an SGM at this stage. When an SGM gets called, the exact motions to be voted on at the SGM need to be included in the notice of the SGM. At this point, there's not even a consensus on *if* the name should be changed, let alone *what* it should be changed to.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I know that - the committee appears to think it should change and we're arguing about bike sheds. I thought we were vaguely concerned about open source software advocacy and support...</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>A Special Resolution will definitely be required. A special resolution requires a three-quarters majority of people voting to agree before it can pass. If we put the motion today, I'm fairly certain that it wouldn't get the support of a three-quarter majority - so calling an SGM at this point would be a waste of the organisation's time and money. </div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>You've basically said that you don't believe a name change would actually get sufficient votes. In which case this whole discussion is fruitless and pointless. If this were a formal meeting now, I'd be tempted to move that the motion be put, have it seconded and then have the motion defeated…because we know we don't have the numbers to get it up.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex; position: static; z-index: auto; ">
<br>
Regardless of what the organisation's core values are, we're not here to argue about our legal name.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Actually, that's precisely the topic of discussion at the moment.</div>
</div></div></blockquote><br></div><div>Yes, and I don't see "arguing about our legal name" in any value statement that Linux Australia has put up…</div><div><br></div><div>DSL</div><br></div></body></html>