[plug] Name Registration.

[Anthony J. Breeds-Taurima]

On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, The Thought Assassin wrote:

> > Part of the application process is the creation of a set of
> > binding that dictate who does what and how plug will be "run".  I would like
> > comments on these rules.  You can read the rules at:
> > http://www.cantech.net.au/plug/Rules.htm
> > They are very straight forward.  I need to move on the application (I intend
> > to have the application into the Min. of FT within 14 days, so if you feel
> > you'd like to make comments please do so.
> 
> How much of this is required, and how much of this is suggested?

At http://www.cantech.net.au/plug/schedule.htm is the requirements for the
"rules".  Any body requiring Incorporation requires rules :(.  The document I
published ( http://www.cantech.net.au/plug/rules.htm ) is a suggested set of
rules that is legaly correct and meets the criteria of the schedule :(.

I fully agree that it seems like so much beaurocratic BS, BUT it is a
requirement. .... :(  I talked to the beaurocrats at the Min. of FT and they 
seemed rather non-committal :(.  

> I would have to admit that I am terrible at things beaurocratic (Red tape
> gives me a rash and recurring headaches, not to mention persecution complexes)
> but I am sure that a lot of this is not really necessary in our case?
> 
> A person who wishes to become a member shall:
> G> Write his name on the "List of members" described below"
> 
> Subscriptions of members of Association
> G> Do we need this section? Do we ever intend to have a "subscription" fee?
> G> A library fee, perhaps, though I think I favour a deposit, maybe a fee
> G> for mailing a newsletter if that happens, but I can't envisage a need for a
> G> general subscription fee.

I thought we would simply say that people that have paid the "fee" will have
access to the library, the one David Campbell has been working on, for a
smaller cost.   Ie Members pay a $5 deposite when "checking out" items where
as non-members pay $10 ..... how does that sound.
> 
> Expulsion of members of Association
> G> since membership does not confer any power, I doubt we need this clause.

We NEED all these clauses it's just the contnts of the clause we need to
discuss.   Remember these rule are not what I wanted merely a starting point.


> It gets worse from there folks:)
> It seems like the aim of the document is to organise distribution of power,
> whereas our needs are probably more along the lines of distributing
> responsibility(A la talkd, nntpd, httpd, ld), in leiu of any power actually
> existing. 
> I also think it is aimed at an association somewhat larger than ours.
> A quorom of 30 members, for example is a bit excessive.
> We would also be hard-pressed to find a commitee of eight, IMHO.
> Do we need to have seperate Chair, Treasurer, Secretary, etc?
> (Or should I say schedule(), $_, and syslogd)

We can redefine all these values.  I'll wait untill the weekend and then
modeify the rules based on the comments I reccieve.

> It might be better if we could get one person to do all of these things,
> since they are all likely to very light loads. Obviously a 
> vice-three-headed-monster would also be needed.  Hmm, 3HMs.....
> Points to whoever can think of the obvious name for such a position.
> 
> Obviously all of that would be subject to what is actually required of us,
> so the only actual useful thing I have to say is:
> 
> The objects of the Association are- 
> to educate interested parties about the features of the Linux computer 
> operating system.
> G> Probably also "facilitating discussion" or whatever. 
> G> Some mention of maintaining shared resources?

That sounds fair enough.  I'll add that into the appropriate section.
The key thing is we NEED and educational object for legal reasons, BUT I think
II've covered that.


Yours Tony.