[LUGSB] LUGSB constitution.

[Chris Wright]

On 02/04/2008, Ryan Kaufman <rkaufman at ams.sunysb.edu> wrote:
>  Well, not explaining ourselves clearly enough to be understood by an
>  'outsider' would violate our stated purpose of raising awareness, wouldn't
> it? Unless we are just raising our own awareness of things we already know
> about (which we are, but we should try to go farther). I think we can ignore
> the definition of 'open source', and strike any references to it as it falls
> under the heading of 'free'. Please correct me if this is wrong or
> backwards.

There are three issues: explaining ourselves so that we know what we
should be doing, explaining ourselves to people in order to accomplish
that, and explaining ourselves to people so they can tell whether we
are accomplishing that.

We already have the necessary technical knowledge.

Our constitution will not actually attract any members, no matter how
well worded.

LUGSB should not be evaluated by someone who cannot look up the
definition of Open Source. It will be evaluated by such people, but
they will have much more information on us than just our constitution.

In this case, I think the appropriate action would be to provide
supplementary documentation to the constitution. Or perhaps a
Definitions section.