[Linux-aus] Affiliates no longer welcome
davidn at davidnewall.com
Tue Jul 26 17:58:03 EST 2011
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.
More information about the linux-aus