Procedural issues: was [oclug] Nomination: Dave O'Neill

[Chris Herrnberger]

On Friday 30 March 2001 08:43, you wrote:

Burns: the emails are comming in a different times so I'll respond in 
sequence. Received your second post first .....:) the joy of the net....:

>
> But you do raise a point that was discussed at length by the charter
> drafting committee... the subject of  "absentee" or non-local leadership of
> OCLUG. The consensus was that first and foremost OCLUG is the OTTAWA (i.e.
> local) Linux user Group. In as much as board members are there to represent
> us, the members, they should indeed be local so they can reflect local
> issues and the intent and desires of the members.

I coulnt agree more. However there are many people who have made valuable 
contributions ot OCLUG that now reside in other areas due to work or other 
reasons. I would think that contribbutions by such members should be 
considered of equal value as contributions by current local members. 

> Whether or not OCLUG should evolve to a national or international
> organization was a completely separate issue and one which we felt went
> well beyond the scope and mandate of the present charter.

Thats a missinterpration of my first post. I have no personal interest in an 
international local group as there many available already. 

What I was suggesting in the first post (and hopping to engage people in a 
discussion other than the usual responders) that the focus needs to be local 
for sure but that a persons current geographical location has no bearing on 
the value or quality of the contribution that that individual may supply. 
These parameters are geographically irrelevant hence the example of the 
kernal (not as clean as it could be but all I could muster at the time)
So if a person understands what OCLUG is all about lives here and moves or 
alternatively is in TO and has been on the list for the last three years, the 
quality of the contribution that such a member can make to OCLUG is 
geographically independant.  I hope thats a cleaner expression of the point I 
was raising as to me the nature of the contribution to the board, to OCLUG 
and to the membership is far more important then reputation, status or 
geographical location. Its a question of service, and the quality of 
service. 

> At one time in the drafting process we did allow for honorary members
> and/or honorary directors. Somehow I think it got dropped out, although it
> could be put back in as an amendment once the basic charter is in place. If
> ( to use your example) Linus was ever to express an interest in OCLUG, I'm
> sure that we would be only too happy to make him an honorary director who
> can sit in (electronically or otherwise) on board meetings, etc. I have
> been in other groups where that is precisely thae approach taken with
> "distinguished persons" with whom they have a relationship.
> However, notwithstanding the above, the Board can appoint any person to an
> appointment. This was originally done so the Board could appoint people to
> head up committees, etc. There is nothing to say that they couldn't appoint
> someone like Linus to be a "special advisor" (as long as it was unpaid).

I hear you and understand but I respectfully disagree with such a position 
based on the point raised above. I am personaly uncomfortable (of course I 
can live with it this is a discussion forum after all..:)) with such an 
instruction to the board as it empowers the board to act with out concesus of 
the membership who will be the inheriters of the outcomes of third party 
initiatives. I would be more comfortable as a member if the membership was 
included in an approval cycle of such third party contributions as they the 
membership and not the administrative layer of OCLUG will be the receipiants 
and benfactors of such third party initiatives.

Just a thought....

Chris