[oclug] Nomination: Dave O'Neill

[Chris Herrnberger]

On Thursday 29 March 2001 22:06, you wrote:
> If I had not moved to BC in Feb. I would stand for nomination to the board
> but it would be imposable to get to any meetings.

This bring up an interesting point/issue. There is nothing in the current 
charter or bylaws ( that I am aware of...I have not read it this month) that 
requires a persons physical presence in Ottawa or in the "board room" to be a 
member and make a "valued contribution" to this group. If that premise is 
correct (will have to read charter again) and if someone wants to make a 
positive contribution to OCLUG in the form of getting involved at the member 
or the board level, should not such a request be reviewed and accepted on 
equal standing as a local member. Certainly we have the technology to not 
only accommodate such contributions but more importantly to make full use of 
such contributions an an unilateral basis. (Say Linus wanted to join "and 
contribute"...would he be refused because he lives in California ?)

So, in summary, I think it is currently within the scope of our control 
documentation that:

(a) should a member wish to stand for nomination, and seconded by another 
local OCLUG member, the members postal address and physical residence should 
be given equal weight and significance as a member residing in Ottawa.
(b)membership to non residence of Ottawa should be limited to proportional 
representation in comparison to local residences ( hay this is a local group 
and needs to have a local focus)
(b) we deploy and make available at no cost the required communications 
technology to ensure that remote member's contributions can assessed on an 
equal footing as contributions by local members

If this is not in the charter it should be and I would argue it as follows. 
If we wish to attract the most dedicated people to OCLUG's membership and 
board, and similarly if we wish to attract people who are willing to make 
valueable contributions to OCLUG their physical location once that commitment 
is expressed should have no bering on the assessment of their contributions. 
I would further suggest that this is consistent with open source 
methodologies which this group defends as being viable, realistic and 
meaningful. 

Just a thought, an argument and a proposal. Comments most welcome. Sorry Im 
tired so this is not presented as cleanly as it should but I think most of 
the issues have been addressed in the presentation.

Chris