[ILUG] Re: [OT] END OF THREAD

[Barry O'Donovan]

On Tue 03 Feb 2004 14:50, Ruairi Newman wrote:
> > He is the *elected* chairman and, as such, is fulfilling his role
> > in protecting the group and its members in a way in which he sees
> > fit.
> >
> > It is his right, whether you dispute it or not.
>
> I'm sorry, was there an addendum to the constitution appointing the
> committee as censors of the mailing list?  I think not. 

I havn't read the constitution. Nor do I need to to know that somewhere 
in there is a line that states something to the effect of "the 
committee will act in the best interests of the society/group" 

> Not to put 
> to fine a point on it, but to respond in kind to the tone of your
> message, go and jump.

I'm not the kind of person who suger coats every e-mail that I write. 
However, you've judged my tone incorrectly. I was simply stating my 
opinion on the matter. Maybe I should have said:

"Although you may dispute it, I believe it is his right" 

The situation that spawned your post and my response is a potentially 
damaging situation for individual contributors to the list on the 
relevent topic, as well as the society as a whole. It is the chairman's 
responsibility and duty to act accordingly.

Whilest in college I was active in a number of societies and nothing 
infuriated me more than members who walked around waving a constitution 
in one hand while the other was raised in objection to some committee 
decision. All it did was stifle progress and alienate members.

Does the constitution need to explicitly state all actions that the 
chairman may and may not take? Should he turn to the members for a vote 
on every decision? Or should he be allowed to act with a bit of 
independance so as to fulfill his role in progressing and protecting 
the society?


-- 
Regards,
Barry O'Donovan  -  www.ihl.ucd.ie

Roinn na Ríomheolaíochta, An Coláiste Ollscoile, Baile Átha Cliath, 
Éire.
Department of Computer Science, University College Dublin, Ireland.