[LUAU] Another Bylaw to Chew On

[ztaylor at aloha.net]

Changes:

here=hear
gourds=grounds

ztaylor at aloha.net wrote:
> 
> 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