[Linux-aus] Affiliates no longer welcome

Silvia Pfeiffer silvia at silvia-pfeiffer.de
Wed Jul 20 15:06:09 EST 2011

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 8:34 PM, David Newall <david at davidnewall.com> wrote:
> On 18/07/11 19:26, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>> You're not contributing positively to this discussion.
> That's  your opinion and I don't share it.  I have proposed a simple
> solution: add a clause stating the financial year; you don't like that
> and prefer to introduce changes under the guise of doing something
> different.  If you can't act in a way that some might call fraudulent
> you should get out of the way.

I think you will find that a large number of people are supportive of
resetting to the new model constitution and adding our required
changes on top of that. At minimum, the SGM will tell us about how
large this support is

Moving to the new model rules ensures that we are compliant with
current requirements for Associations, which I believe we'd have to
get checked by a lawyer if we didn't do that. I've had that situation
with another association that decided not to base its constitution on
the current model rules and they were asked to get a lawyer to certify
that they are still meeting all the legal requirements. I'd rather
avoid that legal expense and get on with doing constructive work for
the organisation - something that the current committee has been doing
really well and has not been allowed to do much in recent weeks for
having to sort out this constitution issue.


More information about the linux-aus mailing list