Re: Thoughts about constitution

["Gurunandan R. Bhat" <grbhat@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 8 Sep 2000, Indranil Das Gupta wrote:

when I (Gurunandan) said:

> > enable affiliation on a per programme basis rather than on a
> > permanent one. 

> Sounds good, but....
> 
> [1] Abt relationship between LI and the local LUGs... how does LI
> recognise a local LUG?

In the same way that Thaths/Arun/KD generated the subscriber-list for this
mailing list. Most LUGs have a mailing list and a coordinator who gives
calls for monthly meets and posts minutes. For cities that do not have a
LUG, we merely recognise the first :substantial: group of independent
individuals who approach LI with a desire to affiliate themselves.

> [2] If we are talking about a loose structure wrt LI and local LUGs as
> suggested, who/how to constitute the "governing body" of LI ?

Good question. The structure is "loose" so as to enable LUGs to choose
what events and programmes they participate in. I suggest this since
affliation with LI cannot be forced upon a LUG. This includes a desire to
participate in the process of nominating members to LI, which too cannot
be legislated. If no LUG comes forward to nominate the LI governing
council, so be it. It would be a sign that LI as percieved by LUGs was
largely redundant/irrelevant and therefore no cause for grief. I could
live with that.

> unless the nature of representation in the LI governing body from the
> different ILUGs is *very, very* clearly laid-out there is a likely
> chance of misinterpretation of actions taken by the body.

I agree that the "nature of representation" of LUGs in LI must be clearly
laid down. What I meant was that having laid this down, there is nothing
you can do if a LUG refuses to participate in constructing this
representation. Do we then exclude such LUGs from LI for ever? Unfair IMO.

> [3] How about something like a overall membership of the LUGs with LI
> and an event-specific interactive mode of operation.

This expresses what I had in mind nicely.

> [4] Even before we have any formal body in place there is talk of ppl
> wanting out or saying that they would not be part of the
> process/proposed structure.

I believe that this is due to lack of a clear statement of what LI would
stand for and what it would do. Once we draft this part clearly, and do it
well, a LUG would refuse to participate in LI to its own detriment. On the
other hand, if LUGs refuse to participate in LI, even with a clear
statement in place, it would point to a flawed charter rather than a
misguided LUG. 

> what can happen if a local LUG membership forks... What should be the
> status of any breakaway faction vis a vis the existing one wrt to LI?

Tentative solutions:

	1) We back the one that commands the faith of the majority.
	2) We back both and invite their participation in LI. 

> [5] I agree with Arun that having a weighted representation on LI
> based directly on the number of members in each LUG is a difficult
> proposition, and one that is open to abuse/misuse and
> doubts/suspicions.

I thought Arun initially held the view that weighted representation is a
Good Thing. Please correct me.

> I somewhat liked the idea of weightage/membership classification of LI
> --> LUGs based on Arun's latter suggestion -- metro, non-metro, towns
> and villages.

I urge you to see the consequences of this: Two large LUGs (hypothetically
Bangalore and Delhi) would have enough representation on LI to decide and
rule on matters that affect the rest of the ten to twelve LUGs who
probably have a larger combined representation. Think why India has had 9
out ten PMs from the state of U.P. 

Regards,
Gurunandan