| |
Andy Lynch wrote:
> Chris and all,
> Well, I believe that I can make July 22. I need to verify with my wife to make
> sure that we have nothing that we must be at on that date.
That would be my most likely date as well.
> About the name issue, I don't really have a preference, except that I don't
> think that the name should make anyone feel like they shouldn't belong. Such
> as, if we use "Garden State" which is another name for New Jersey, will that
> make people in other states less likely to join? I don't know, but if we think
> that's a possibility, then we should go with something else.
I'm leaning towards "SEASLUG." ;)
> I'm afraid that I have no experience in organizing groups, but I will attempt
> to help any way that I can.
My only experience involves extracting money from University bureaucracies, so I
won't be much help on this one.
> An addition to the agenda should probably be talking about requirements for
> membership, and additionally, requirements to be a VOTING member. Question:
> does someone lose the right to vote if they do not attend meetings? Can someone
> who lives at a large distance from our meeting place be considered a voting
> member? I realize that Lindsay Braun has stated that he will be living in
> Europe for a year, and this is not directed at him at all. Someone implied
> during the Age discussion on LUGNET that people could join NELUG from anywhere,
> and then vote to change the charter. It was most likely written tongue in
> cheek, but we should probably address it.
I think that if we make it clear that the group is adult-*oriented* (that is,
centered on AFOL interests however defined, which would include a lot of people who
are under 18 and thus avoid the "line in the sand" issue) then we can be fluid and
not exclude anyone who wants to make a contribution.
Personally, I'd say that membership should confer voting privileges regardless of
the member's current locale. If they're incommunicado (as I will be from time to
time) or they don't feel they can realistically tender an opinion on an issue, then
they won't vote. If you're concerned about "saboteur" voting or other mischief,
then it should be pretty obvious who is or is not serious about the group by the
time a vote is taken.
On the other hand, there's a lot to say in favour of holding votes only at
meetings, else only among those who have attended at least one meeting. But unless
we engender a lot of bad blood somewhere (and I can't see that happening, well, not
as it stands, anyhow, can I add more clauses, perhaps, if you think I should,
knowing that I might) I think that simple alertness will be adequate.
best (and likely entirely too optimistically),
Lindsay
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
52 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
