[LUAU] Another Bylaw to Chew On

[ztaylor at aloha.net]

I understand that things change, but when group is built on one
pretense and then moved away from that, then the group is no longer what
it started out to be. This group was started as a free group, and I feel
that it should remain a free group. Example: If an organization starts
out as an orphanage, and ten years later it starts charging rent to the
kids, then it is no longer an orphanage. I feel the same with LUAU. LUAU
was started as a free group and was always meant to be so, now it seems
to be changing, even if it is only a suggestion. I understand why you
don't like to here "It should never be ....", but this is why it was
started, and the agenda that it was always meant to follow. If you
change one of the fundamental gourds for the group then you change the
dynamics of the group and in essence the group itself. That may not be a
bad thing, true, but then it is no longer really LUAU, in my mind.

Michael Sawyer wrote:
> 
> My normal rule is that I'll make one comment on a subject, speak my peace, and
> not argue it, since that only leads to possible flame wars.  I'm going to
break
> that rule now.  :>
> 
> First off, I want to make it clear I wasn't arguing *for* dues, only that they
> should not be dismissed out of hand.  The arguments against them are
compelling,
> and I would probably be inclined to vote against them personally.  My point
was
> that if all voices are equal, if there are a good number of people who feel
that
> dues are an option to be discussed, it's not right or fair for one or two
people
> to shut that discussion down with a blanket statement "We will never have
dues,"
> especially if the discussion comes up in an appropriate place at an
appropriate
> time.
> 
> I guess the issue I have isnt so much with dues themself, but with the mindset
> that some topics are simply not open for discussion by anyone, because of what
> one person says, regardless of who that person is.  I'll fully agree with the
> statement "We shouldn't have dues," but I will equally fully disagree with the
> statement "We can't ever consider dues" or even "We can't consider dues now."
> 
> I read the Linux User Group HOWTO the other night, and it struck me that we
are
> in a phase mentioned in that document, where there is a shift from a
"benevolent
> dictatorship" to a formal group of leaders.  I also think that by doing so,
the
> group is allowed to grow and prosper better than without the organization.  Do
I
> think it is appropriate to include a clause in the by-laws which prohibits
dues?
> Absolutly.  Would I vote for it?  More than likely yes.  Do I think we should
> state that they can never be changed under any circumstances?  No; doing so
sets
> a precidence of binding future leadership to a course dictated by the present
> leadership, which shows an inherent lack of trust in future leaders to respond
> to the situation at hand.
> 
>                                                 Mike
> 
> 
> --
> -     __   __  __________  __
> -    / /  / / / / __  / / / /  Home Page: http://luau.hi.net
> -   / /__/ /_/ / /_/ / /_/ /
> -  /____/\____/_/ /_/\____/  LUAU - Linux Users AnonymoUs - Hawaii
> 
> -   To unsubscribe: echo unsubscribe luau | mail majordomo at luau.hi.net
> -           LUAU meetings are the 3rd Tuesday of each month 6pm
> -                   Manoa Innovation Center Meeting Room