[plug] The AGM again

[David Lloyd]

<big snip>

Whilst I agree with what you say, Bret, it all falls apart when another
organisation or disillusioned individual points out to people who have
signed contracts with the legally incorporated body that they could not have
signed the contract because they were elected invalidly.

(Don't ask how I know this can happen; just take my word for it. It's
already happened)

Disregarding ill motives from competing organisations--let's pretend that
the open source movement isn't fractured and we all like each other--other
big organisations can profit from being able to avoid fulfilling contracts.
In fact, the most obvious of these entities are the insurance companies.

Let's face it--an insurance company does NOT make money by paying insurance
and if they can avoid paying it they will.

So, my advice would be:

 1. The committee ways the pros and cons of holding an AGM that conforms
    strictly with the constitution OR that is supported by the majority of
    the members

 2. The new committee, however elected, takes a look at the constitution and
    uses past experience and the knowledge within the organisation from
    people such as yourself to write a constitution that reflects the
    organisation's needs

For the most part, if the organisation doesn't turn over a huge amount of
money, the Government departments overseeing the Incorporations Acts
(however named) do take the view that it's best the organisation continues
provided that the organisation is fulfilling its aims honestly.

But we should be aware that it's not just the Government Department who
might cause difficulties :-)

DSL