[ILUG] Re: [OT] END OF THREAD

[Ruairi Newman]

On Tue, 2004-02-03 at 15:15, Barry O'Donovan wrote:
> On Tue 03 Feb 2004 14:50, Ruairi Newman wrote:
> > 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" 
> 
Nope.  http://www.linux.ie/legal/constitution.php.  I do not believe
that there is anything giving any member of the committee the right to
silence a member of the mailing list on any topic.  That's called
censorship.

> 
> 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" 
> 
Fine.  Maybe I'm being over-sensitive, but a little courtesy never hurt
anyone.

> 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.
> 
Indeed.  Up to and including the point of insisting that list members
not slander Mr Campbell and his business on the list.  Banning further
discussion of the topic goes too far.

> 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.
> 
I sincerely hope you're not attempting to place me in that bracket.  If
you are, I would suggest you return to what I previously wrote, and
reread it.

> 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?

Up to a point.  For the most part, members can be expected to behave
responsibly - those people who have sent abusive mails direct to Mr
Campbell excluded of course.  Again, exhorting members to moderate their
tone should be sufficient.  We are mostly (if not all - are there minors
on the list?) adults here.

Anyway, I think this has probably gone far enough.  We both have our
opinions and I think we've both made those opinions abundantly clear to
anyone who is interested - and the many who are not.

Regards,

Ruairí

-- 
Laugh and the world thinks you're an idiot.  Crying doesn't help either.
		-- Unknown