[LUGSB] LUGSB constitution.

[Diane M. Napolitano]

On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 11:57 PM, Benjamin Kudria <ben at kudria.net> wrote:

> On Tuesday 01 April 2008 23:41:01 pm Ilya Sukhanov (dotCOMmie) wrote:
>
<snip>

>
> > Current Article II:
> > The primary purpose of LUGSB is to promote the use of Linux, Open
> Source,
> > and Free (as in freedom) Software among the members of the Stony Brook
> > community. A second purpose is to provide an environment open to all who
> > wish to learn how to use, and understand free software.
> >
> > Proposed Article II:
> > The primary purpose of LUGSB is to raise awareness of the Linux
> operating
> > system, Open Source technologies, and Free (as in Freedom) Software by
> > conducting regular colloquia to members of the Stony Brook community. A
> > second purpose is to provide an open and supportive environment to all
> who
> > wish to understand, and learn how to use Free Software.
> >
> > I'm not sure if this is enough to make SSC/USG happy. Again, please send
> > your comments.
>
> Sounds good to me!
>
> The timing is unfortunate, but I don't think we'll be able to change their
> minds.  Updating Article II, at least slighty, as above, will give us a
> better position: "you had complaints, we fixed them", as opposed to "you
> had
> complaints, but you were wrong, and we are right", so we did nothing".
>
>
Unfortunately, the proposed change doesn't really solve the problem.  The
issue here is that USG has absolutely no idea what any of those terms mean
and would rather not take the time to figure it out.  It's not our place
here, I'm afraid, to be stubborn and insist that they bend to our will and
get themselves learned, as they are the ones with the cash, and that gives
them a certain level of power over us.

I don't see this as a minor change that sacrifices our principles, and it's
not wrong of them to ask for something like this, regardless of how ignorant
they are and how poor their timing is.  The reason why it wasn't an issue
when you submitted this constitution before was because the person who read
it and approved it (it may be a committee of peoples) understood the terms,
or just didn't care and didn't see a problem.  Now, the people have reading
this are different peoples, who have no idea what's going on and are afraid
to give you money as a result.

Compromise is the name of the game here, folks. :)  I think the proposed
article needs more meat, but I'm either too tired to word this right, or I'm
having difficulty adding more definition-y stuff because the meanings of the
terms used are as plain and obvious to me as the nose on my face.  Anyone
have any suggestions?  Remember, the issue here is that they have absolutely
no idea what we're talking about.

- Diane

P.S: If it means anything, I spent all four years of undergrad in student
government, doing exactly this (reading group constitutions and making sure
they were kosher), at a place far more viciously political than this
(Binghamton), so if these guys keep giving you hassle after we work this
out... :)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/pipermail/lugsb/attachments/20080402/4be1d633/attachment-0001.htm