Re: [Linux-aus] Agenda for SGM, AGM 15 Jan 04

[Bret Busby <bret@busby.net>]

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Andrew Cowie wrote:

> Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 22:03:21 +1100
> From: Andrew Cowie <andrew@operationaldynamics.com>
> To: announce@linux.org.au
> Cc: Linux Australia <linux-aus@linux.org.au>
> Subject: [Linux-aus] Agenda for SGM, AGM 15 Jan 04
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Linux Australia is holding it's Annual General Meeting of Members on
> Thursday, 15 January 2004 in Adelaide at linux.conf.au '04.The AGM will
> be proceeded by a Special General Meeting of Members at which we intend
> to ratify a constitution change. Exact time and location as per the LCA schedule.
> 
> The agenda for each meeting is as follows:
> 
> 1. SGM
> 
>         Call to order, establish notice of meeting, establish quorum.
>         
>         Approval of minutes of previous Meetings of Members
>         (specifically AGM '02 of 23 Jan 03 and SGM of 9 Dec 03)
>         
>         Consideration and acceptance of proposed changes to Constitution. See
>         http://www.linux.org.au/org/ for details.
>         
>         Close
>         
> 

At the URL www.linux.org.au/org/new/constitutionv6.phtml , which is the 
web page at the end of the link "Proposed Constitution Changes for 
LCA2004", which appears to be the information about the changes on 
which a vote or votes are to be taken, as cited above, the "Summary of 
the changes section" lists 17 separate changes, and the "List of the 
proposed changes", lists 26 apparent separate changes.

The agenda above, for the SGM, does not specify whether the proposed 
changes are to be voted on, individually, eg "Motion: that section x of 
the constitution be amended by..., and that section y of the constituion 
be amended by ..., so as to accommodate the former amendment", or that 
the constitution is to be changed by a single vote; eg "Motion: that the 
constitution be replaced with the proposed amended constitution version 
6".

The email message posted by Pia on 4 January, to which reference is made 
in the message above, 

> 
> [The agenda for both SGM and AGM was posted by Pia Smith at the time
> time notice of the meeting was lodged 22 Dec 03, and was resent 4 Jan
> 03. You can view these lists' archives if you'd like to see those
> messages]
> 
> 

starts as follows.

On Sun, 4 Jan 2004, Pia Smith wrote:
> 
> Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 18:54:51 +1100
> From: Pia Smith <pia@linux.org.au>
> To: linux-aus <linux-aus@lists.linux.org.au>
> Subject: [Linux-aus] SGM/AGM reminder
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> This was sent on the 22nd December, just a quick reminder :) Also all
> members can vote in the elections, so if you are not a member and want
> to vote, become one. Even if you can't be present you can still send a
> proxy vote to committee@linux.org.au.
> 
> SGM/AGM at LCA2004
> ----------------------------
> We are holding two short meetings at LCA2004, an SGM and then the AGM
> directly following. We are running both by the previous constitution,
> and thus individual votes must be either by a show of hand, or a proxy
> vote sent to the secretary.
> 
> - SGM
>         + To be held on the 15th January at LCA2004.
>         + Open
>         + The reason for the SGM is to submit the proposed constitution
> changes for a vote. The constitution changes can be found at
> http://www.linux.org.au/org/ and the latest version is V5, which had a
> few spelling mistakes picked up and the 'Honorary Life Member' further
> defined. The constitution changes attempt to make administration of
> Linux Australia easier, transform it into an online organisation, and
> lower the barrier of entry (see the document for a full listing of
> changes). This has been lodged with the Secretary, and this requisition
> is GPG signed.
>         + Close
> 
> 

>From the text of the above message, where Pia stated "The reason for the 
SGM is to submit the proposed constitution changes for a vote.", it is 
indicated that a single vote will be taken, to replace the constitution 
with the proposed amended constitution, version 6, as opposed to voting 
on single, separate amendments.

Is that correct? This is significant, as it has significantly different 
effects. For example, if the constitution changes are to be voted on as 
a whole, a voter then has to decide which is of greater importance; 
voting against changes to which the voter is opposed, or, voting for 
changes that the voter supports. It is like the "referendum as to 
whether Australia should become a republic", in which voters were given 
a simple choice - either the prime minister would be given the powers of 
a supreme dictator (able to sack the president, with no recourse 
against that decision), or no republic. So, people rejected that model, 
and were denied Australia becoming a republic, as Australia did not want 
to become an authoritarian dicatorship.

Similarly, in this case, if a person is opposed to the "Honorary Life 
Membership (HLM) class of membership (which, as it appears, does NOT yet 
exist, but requires approval of an SGM, for that class of membership to 
be created), but wants the use of online voting, and use of email for 
official correspondence, to be formalised in the cosntitution, a voter 
may be coerced into voting for the HLM clas of membership, to bring in 
the other changes, or, have to reject the advancement of LA via the use 
of email and online voting, through voting against the HLM class of 
membership.

I strongly suggest that this issue needs to be explicitly clarified; 
whether the voting will be on the individual changes to the 
constitution, and, whether that will be on 17 changes, or 26 changes, 
as mentioned above, or, for the replacement of the whole constitution, 
with the proposed amended constitution v6, as mentioned above, which 
is the version as specified by the formal notices of the SGM, as given 
above. 

Whilst some on the list have apparently nothing but contempt for me and 
my views, due to personal dislike of me, and due to intolerance of 
opinions that differ from their own opinions, from my experience of 
notices of AGM's and SGM's, both of university student guilds, and of 
onther incorporated non-profit organisations (hence, incorporated 
organisations of varying sizes, from tens to thousands of members), the 
usual reuirements for motions at SGM's and AGM's, especially where the 
constitution is to be amended, require all motions to be put to an 
SGM/AGM, to be explicitly stated, with the names of the mover and 
seconder,  and included in the notices of the SGM's/AGM's, with adequate 
notice, so that the members can consider the ramifications of the 
motions, including, as in this case, the differences between proposing 
separate amendements to the constitution, voted on separately, and, a 
single propsed relacement of the constitution, voted on via a single 
vote, as I have mentioned above.

-- 
Bret Busby
Armadale
West Australia
..............

"So once you do know what the question actually is,
 you'll know what the answer means."
- Deep Thought,
  Chapter 28 of 
  "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:
  A Trilogy In Four Parts",
  written by Douglas Adams, 
  published by Pan Books, 1992 
....................................................