Hi,<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 1:08 AM, James Turnbull <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:james@lovedthanlost.net" target="_blank">james@lovedthanlost.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----<br>
Hash: SHA1<br>
<br>
</div><div class="im">Brent Wallis wrote:<br>
> However, I do believe that I have a right to make my opinion public.<br>
> TBH my opinion on this matter is probably a minority one.<br>
<br>
</div>No one is objecting you having an opinion - both Donna and I objected to<br>
the snide insinuations that there is a conspiracy at work here.</blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I also<br>
suggested that if you don't like the running of the organization you can<br>
always put your money where your mouth is and run a campaign on the<br>
issue(s).<br>
<div class="im"><br></div></blockquote><div>And it would fail.</div><div>More importantly, running for committee on such a single issue really would be destructive.</div><div><br></div><div>My remarks have been to simply holding up a mirror on a small but prevalent perception of the process so far.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I DO like the way the org is run. </div><div>My disagreement on a single issue should not be misconstrued as being judgemental of the entire org.</div><div><br></div><div>As I have made clear many times before.</div>
<div>The current committee deserves medals all round for the commitment and effort that goes into Linux Conf .</div><div>Apart from that I would single out the sponsorship process and Ada initiatives as being possibly the most enlightened and endearing works in the last couple of years. </div>
<div>Be proud!</div><div>More importantly, I call on you all to stop taking things like this personally.</div><div>Your better than that!</div><div><br></div><div>I am not afraid or too proud to apologise for any offence caused, but do wish to remind you all that opinions and perception management are important.</div>
<div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">
> You win, we lose. End of argument. Making this decision via the<br>
> committee without a vote, even though the constitution seems to allow<br>
> it, is simply thumbing your nose at the freedoms we are all meant to<br>
> support.<br>
<br>
</div>So there's no point in discussing this with you because you've basically<br>
ignored Peter's email? NO CHANGE IS BEING MADE WITHOUT A VOTE. If people<br>
don't vote for a change - either in the initial ballots to short-list a<br>
name (which includes the "No name change" option) then nothing happens.<br>
If then a short-listed name is found THEN an SGM has to be held to<br>
ratify the choice. You have THREE ballots - a choice, a run-off and the<br>
SGM to oppose the change. Exactly how much more democratic can this be?<br><br></blockquote><div> </div><div>Well I missed that post, and if this is the process then I stand corrected.</div><div>It would have been much easier to point this out in response to my first posts?</div>
<div><br></div><div>Is there a perm link where this process has been spelled out or is it only in a list post?</div><div><br></div><div>Rgds</div></div>