[Linux-aus] Affiliates no longer welcome

[David Newall]

On 26/07/11 04:15, James Turnbull wrote:
> He's raising issues about a constitution that is currently invalid,
> requires replaying of every constitutional change approved for several
> years and still doesn't address the financial year issue.

Incorrect and, in my opinion, on the cusp of dishonest.  The 
constitution fails the new requirements only because it doesn't address 
the financial year.  Every suggestion that I've made has addressed this 
issue.  Not replaying previously approved changes without explicit 
justification is improper and contrary to normal procedures.

> Mary, John et al have explained this quite carefully and laid out the
> proposed changes.

Also incorrect.  If the proposed changes had been laid out, a comparison 
between our current constitution and what is proposed would have been 
presented, which it has not.

The very clear impression I have is that the council is unwilling to 
document and justify the precise changes, such as increases in fees and 
establishment of new fees, such as disenfranchisement of classes of 
members, and has sought to sneak these through without comment.  The 
weakest excuses have been given.  New fees aren't introduced because 
they're in the model, they're introduced because the council chooses not 
to alter that part of the model.  The financial year isn't July to June 
because the council does choose to alter that part of the model.  That 
they choose to do the one and not the other is evidence that these fees 
are a deliberate act with no attempt at justification.

I can accept that council's proposal is made in good faith, but I can't 
accept it without knowing the reason why.  While the reason for changing 
financial year has been very nicely explained, the reasons for the other 
changes are feeble and unconvincing.  The hostility displayed in lieu of 
giving explanations is vexing, suspect, and I for one do not understand it.