Re: yacc v0.1 (Yet Another Constitution Candidate)

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

On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Sudhakar Chandra wrote:

> "Gurunandan R. Bhat" proclaimed:
> 
> "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."

Consider this too: LI writes to the respective LUGs mailing list saying
--- "X claims to be the coordinator of your LUG and wishes to be a
member of the LI core. Does anyone have objections". If more than y%
objections arrive, we ask the list to nominate a new member.


> 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.

I could not think of any graceful way of doing this, yet. But will think
some more.

> Should the coordinator of a LUG also be that LUG's representative in LI? 

Not neccessarily. The LUG is free to nominate a representative who is not
a coordinator. Of course he needs to be authenrticated by his LUG by one
of the above procedures.  

> >         a) Public Relations and Awareness Management (Mailing List
> >            management, Web site management, Press Releases, Opportunity
> >            identification)
> >         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
> >            stuff)
> > 
> Perhaps it makes sense to divide the responsibilities between two groups -
> operational (Listadmin, Webmaster etc.) and organizational (fund raising,
> event coordination etc.)

I see no harm in that. Might make administration easy. 

> 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.

Of course. 

> > 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
> > Commandments.
> 
> 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.)

Sure as long as no wealth is created and all spendings are properly
accounted and justified. Wealth is the root cause..... We could always
return the money to the sponsor.. ....Oh! forget it ;)

Gurunandan