[LUAU] Another Bylaw to Chew On

[Steve]

There is also nothing stopping LUAU from having some fruits from its efforts for
the good of the group.  One idea that I had, which needs some obvious refinement,
is to have some sort of "software collection" CD available at each meeting, or
occasional meeting.  We could ask for a couple of bucks, say $6 for pizza or $10
for pizza and a CD ($4 donation for the LUAU monthly software CD)  This would be
nice for people who don't have a fast internet connection, or don't have the time
to keep up on all of the latest and greatest.  In the last week there have been a
few requests for "where can I get a program to do X?"  As I said, this is an idea.
I know most of the group has little scripts, utilities, etc that would make it
worthwhile for the other members.

Of course, the immediate rebuttle to this is a LUAU ftp with all of this available
there to registered members.

I also think people (companies) are becoming both Linux and technology aware at a
fast rate.  I'd think this would help us in getting sponsorship in various ways.

Steve

ztaylor at aloha.net wrote:

> 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

--
-     __   __  __________  __
-    / /  / / / / __  / / / /  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