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

Re: Constitution

----- 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
>   India.

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
>   India.

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.

Good point.

> 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).

> 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.

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
seems unnecessary.

>   (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! :)


> prabhu
> ---------------------------------------
> Please respect the privacy of this list.