[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Subject Index][Thread Index]
Re: yacc v0.1 (Yet Another Constitution Candidate)
"Gurunandan R. Bhat" proclaimed:
> OK, Here are some suggestions on the broad structure for LI. I look
> forward to your comments and suggestions.
Thanks for writing these thoughts up, Guru.
> 2) LI must in no way hold any "power" over the LUGs. We need to
> evolve guidelines/criteria to decide "the one true LUG for every city"
> and the "the one true coordinator" for each LUG. Considering that
> Thaths has constructed this mailing list without much ambiguity should
> give us hope that this is not difficult.
How about the following guidelines (apropriately):
"Every new LUG wanting to send its coordinator to LI will send an email to
LI putting forth the name of the coordinator. This proposal has to be
seconded by /at least/ 3 other people from the same LUG. Alternatively,
existing coordinators of LI could also nominate coordinators of new LUGs
(which they get to know of through their contacts) into LI."
When we write this into the constitution, we have to make sure that we have
some kind of democratic way of solving exceptions (like two LUGs claiming
to be The True LUG of city X). Perhaps by voting.
> 4) All coordinators of LUGs get automatic membership to the core group
> of LI. A core group member automatically lays down his position when
> his LUG appoints a new coordinator, who then automatically joins the
> core. A coordinator is free to abstain from exercising this privilege
> (membership of the governing council) , if her LUG sees no benefit in
> their alignment with LI and informs her accordingly.
Should the coordinator of a LUG also be that LUG's representative in LI?
Their plate is already full with all the stuff they have to do for their
LUG. Maybe we should allow the coordinator and the LUG's representative in
LI to be different people. Sort of like an MP not being a Chief Minister
in a state's government.
> Here are some functionaries of LI:
> 1. Managers for (Term 1 year):
> a) Public Relations and Awareness Management (Mailing List
> management, Web site management, Press Releases, Opportunity
> b) Programmes and Event Coordination and Inter-LUG affairs
> (National Linux related event, participation and organisation)
> c) Resource Mobilisation (Fund raising, Library management)
> d) Research and Development (Student events, Scholarships, Geek
> I had earlier put in posts like President, Secretary, Treasurer etc,
> but the whole thing sounded so pompous that I quickly changed my
> mind. Better to keep it all low key ;) What we can (must) do is divide
> up responsibilities and believe in collective responsibility.
Perhaps it makes sense to divide the responsibilities between two groups -
operational (Listadmin, Webmaster etc.) and organizational (fund raising,
event coordination etc.) We also need to note that the operational or
organizational person can, and in fact should, enlist the help of
volunteers to help them out.
> LI should not raise funds (either from sponsorships or donations or
> membership dues, anything) in a manner that would create wealth
> (capital). On the other hand it should strive to raise monies for
> specific programmes and spend them exactly on those programmes. In
> short, between two programmes, LI should be as broke as the Ten
Financial planning is a strange thing. I predict that at the end of some
event there is bound to be some extra monies in the kitty. We could
perhaps think up of ways of using up all these monies and converting them
into goods (advertisements in newspapers / magazines, t-shirts, CDs etc.)
"Movies aren't stupid. They fill us with romance and hatred and revenge
fantasies. 'Lethal Weapon' showed us that suicide is funny."
-- Homer J. Simpson
Sudhakar C13n http://www.aunet.org/thaths/ Lead Indentured Slave