[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Subject Index][Thread Index]
----- Original Message -----
From: Prabhu Ramachandran <prabhu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 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
This is good.
> (2) Provide an easy way out for LUG's to deal with money
> transactions as a non-profit org.
I'm not sure I understand this. Do you mean that corporates can account for
donations by citing LI as a non-profit organisation? That's a good idea,
especially for LUGs that do not have legal status.
> (3) Act as a general launch pad for activities related to Linux in
OK . I think it should be specifically National level activities, though.
> (4) Provide necessary support for the LUG's that represent it.
What kind of support ? Financial? I am not comfortable with that.
> (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.
Uh-uh. LUG's are constituents of LI. More like members of a club. So we'd
say LI is made up of LUGs
> (2) Each LUG that is part of LI will have the foll.
Each LUG that is *a member* 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.
Mostly Good. Account/Legal stuff should be optional (if it's needed at all).
> (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.
What rules? Your structure (which, BTW, I think is pretty good) seems to put
most of the onus of operation on the LUGs. So a regulatory aspect for LI
> (3) LUG does not need to become a legal org by itself. LI should
> handle legalese for it.
Yep, this is a good approach. Unfortunately, it will probably become
necessary as LUGs grow.
> 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.
Absolutely unbiased view! As a non-profit org LI *must not* allow a
commercial org to have any administrative influence. Let's not confuse
co-operation with commercial orgs with handling affairs.
> 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?
I have doubts on the legality of PGP
> Gurunandan> c) What would be the relation between LI and the
> Gurunandan> various LUGs
> LUG's represent LI. So...
and visa versa
> 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! :)
> Please respect the privacy of this list.