[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Subject Index][Thread Index]



	Here is my take on the constitution.  I have no idea if my
thoughts make any sense.  Add/subtract from what follows.

>>>>> "Gurunandan" == Gurunandan R Bhat <grbhat@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

    Gurunandan> a) Aims of LI 

LI will aim to do the following (in no particular order):

  (1) Be a non-profit legal entity that represents all the LUG's of

  (2) Provide an easy way out for LUG's to deal with money
  transactions as a non-profit org.

  (3) Act as a general launch pad for activities related to Linux in

  (4) Provide necessary support for the LUG's that represent it.

  (5) Attempt to solve inter LUG problems by communication/mediation.

Structure of LI:

I would like to think of the structure of LI as follows:

  (1) LI contains LUGs.  Something like branches of an organisation.
  LUG's are branches of LI.

  (2) Each LUG that is part of LI will have the foll.

	(a) a representative who is in charge of keeping the LUG in touch
	with LI.  The representative also votes.

	(b) Some kind of an account managed by LI for it.  This is to 
	make things easy for LUG's to handle money I/O.

  (3) As for now there is no weighted voting.

  (4) Constitution change allowed if and only if > 2/3rd of the
  members and their respective LUG's ratify a proposal.  LUG will
  ratify it byu either holding a special meeting, or on the mailing
  list or on a normal meeting (only folks who attend the meeting can
  vote. :) 

  (5) LI will handle legal aspects of LUG's.


  (1) LUG's are free to do as they please so long as they are not
  against any of LI's fundamental goals (mentioned above).

  (2) LUG's that wish to be part of LI in order to benefit from it
  must register with it and abide by its rules.

  (3) LUG does not need to become a legal org by itself.  LI should
  handle legalese for it.

    Gurunandan> b) How and whom by, will LI be managed

LI will be managed by its representative LUG's.  

LI will need to have a competent legal advisor, and an auditor.

LI should not, if possible allow a commercial organisation to handle
its affairs.  However biased this may sound, this I believe will avoid
a lot of unnecessary pain.

LI will need legal signatories etc.  I'd suggest that each LUG have
its own signatory and national events require signature of all
representatives.  But this is a big pain.  How about PGP'd messages?

    Gurunandan> c) What would be the relation between LI and the
    Gurunandan> various LUGs

	LUG's represent LI.  So...

    Gurunandan> The last (not a part of the constitution) would have
    Gurunandan> to be "who will register LI". If I see no drafts in
    Gurunandan> half a day, I will try to provide a working draft for
    Gurunandan> your consideration.

	We really need an auditor/legal advisor.  I doubt if any one
here is competent to discuss the issues relevant for formalization.
Apologies if I am wrong, but if someone competent is here please speak
up! :)