[Linux-aus] Affiliates no longer welcome

Silvia Pfeiffer silviapfeiffer1 at gmail.com
Sat Jul 23 10:16:26 EST 2011

On 22/07/2011, at 11:30 PM, David Newall <david at davidnewall.com> wrote:

> On 20/07/11 15:51, Brenda Aynsley wrote:
>> I suspect David is saying, without saying it, that in chucking out all
>> the Linux Australia constitutional history, that the baby is going out
>> with the bathwater.  Maybe a good cleanout is a good thing, but knowing
>> what is being chucked out is not a bad thing either.
> Thank you, Brenda, for putting it so well.  I thought that was what I 
> said, but after a week with no support I suppose I must have said it poorly.
> I don't oppose a good clean out.  I just want to know, and think it only 
> proper we be told, what is to change.  "Current practices," has no 
> meaning, "new model," is not sufficient, and "alter financial year" 
> describes the least part of it.
> I fully support Brenda's suggested way forward.
>> I would like to suggest a way forward,
>> 1. Agree on adopting the model rules
>> 2. Identify the bits that are missing from the old constitution and add
>> them if each bit is still required to be part of the constitution.
>> Where conflict exists between the new model rules, and after all they
>> are simply a template that complies with the legislation, resolve the
>> tension and at the end of the day the legislation rules!
> Arguments in support of each change should be included, too.  For 
> example, the new fees and changes to others need to be justified.  
> They're not current practice; and as we decide our own fees, ascribing 
> them to "the new model" isn't right.  I'm not fundamentally opposed to 
> new or increased fees, but without justification I must oppose them.

There are no fees in the new constitution either.

> I have scrutinised our current "as agreed" constitution as well as the 
> new model, and also the Act's requirements; it looks like we could 
> merely add a section stating the new financial year.  I don't oppose 
> re-making all of our constitutional history starting from the new model, 
> even though it is a lot of work.

David, please scruitinize not the new model constitution but the proposed constitution that Mary has developed by adding all our old adaptations into it. Mary has put a lot of effort into doing exactly what both you and Brenda are suggesting, but you keep arguing about the new model constitution which is not our new constitution.


>> After all it's not one thing (model rules) or the other (the old
>> constitution).
> I thought I said this, too, but Brenda said it better.
> Thank you, Brenda, for your valuable input.
> _______________________________________________
> linux-aus mailing list
> linux-aus at lists.linux.org.au
> http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/linux-aus

More information about the linux-aus mailing list