Re: Re: [TwinCLinG] ILUG reps

[Biju Chacko <biju_chacko@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- Nick Hill <nikhilwiz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> getting serious, i dont think LUGs should be formalised at all... 

<snipped some fairly valid reasons>

Nikhil,

Your reservations about politiking  being the end result of any
formalisation effort are shared by many. My experience with several
clubs, associations and organisations tends to support this view.

However, the downside of no organisation is no legal status. To give
just a couple of examples:

* If LI wants to put up a stall at IT.COM 2000, who are the IT.COM
organisers going to deal with? An entire mailing list? Last year, it
was Atul's string pulling that got us in, but can we rely on that?

* The domain name Linux.org.in has been registered by a company in
Pune, presumably for commercial purposes. There are efforts to get it
reassigned. But to which legal entity will it be assigned? For that
matter, who in India has the right to complain?

* There are companies that are interested in handing out freebies to LI
members. What identifies an LI member?

* Last year, /Outlook/ magazine published a slanderous article about
Linux users. Similar articles may come out in future. Is there any
legal entity that can demand a retraction?

It's all very well to be anti-establishment, but sometimes Luggers need
to deal with the establishment, and for that we need some kind of
formal standing.

Like it or not (and I have to admit I'm not too keen on the idea)
formalisation is needed if LI is grow beyond merely a mailing list. Of
course, that assumes that you are interested in more than a mailing
list :) .

regards,

Biju

=====
Biju "Botsie" Chacko 
E-Mail: b o t s i e @ m a i l . c o m (personal)
        e d i t o r @ s p l u s p l . c o m (work)

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail ? Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/