From: Noel Carroll (Noel.Carroll at domain CardBase.com)
Date: Thu 21 Jun 2001 - 16:08:08 IST
> > == Noel Carroll
> > [... emailing the list is not sufficient notice ...]
> That's your opinion. It doesn't seem to be shared by anyone on the
> committee, so I respectfully suggest that therefore it's totally
I'm assuming you mis stated that Colm as I'm sure the implication that, as
long as the committee are happy with themselves, it doesn't matter what any
of the grass roots think, is surely not what you were trying to say... were
There are mechanisms for changing the way the ILUG is
> run, and they are (a) get on the committee and therefore be involved
> with the interpretation of the Constitution as appropriate; and (b)
> change the Constitution. Giving out on the list is utterly pointless.
I agree but it just gets back to my main point that adequate notice should
be given to allow people who are interested in attending the AGM and raising
opinions or points, to do so.
> > [... people may disable mail delivery ...]
> If people have email delivery disabled, I suggest that they are
> therefore not interested in receiving ILUG communications and the
> committee shouldn't have to get into the business of second-guessing
> people's intentions.
And I would suggest that the volume of mail on the mail list is so vast that
it interferes with my paid work which is why it was disabled. I am however
subscribed to the social list and no AGM announcement appeared there.
> > Oh yeah! That'd be possible this time around considering I found
> > out about this AGM so late in the day that I have already plans for
> > this weekend...
> I fail to see what *possible* relevance this has. Yes, it was
> regrettable that the AGM was announced at such short notice, and yes,
> it was regrettable that an announcement wasn't made on the web site
> immediately; and I'm sure that next year's committee will do things
> differently. However, the committee *did* discharge their obligations
> under the Constitution, and there is really nothing further to add.
Well be that as it may, I put it to you that failure to notifiy members in
good time via the web site and to not notify using the social list, or for
that matter any of other LUG lists, does not indicate that any obligations
were discharged in full.
> I'm sure we all regret that you'll have to miss the AGM, and that
> we'll be without your contributions as a result.
Indeed, and I will regret not being there also. I would ask you to also
lament the absence of others in a similar position who are not quite as
vocal but who, nonetheless, suffered a similare fate.
> > Gather names, send out notification? [...] Let the committee member
> > who is the secretary do that! Thats their job! I could point out
> > the implication here but I think you all get it!
> The secretary *did* discharge his obligations as specified by the
> Constitution. The fact that you've been inconvenienced as a result is
> not really a matter for the committee to be concerned with.
With respect to the discharge of duties, I refer you to my point above. As
regards my inconvenience, I don't care about that. What I want to see is an
ILUG that gives its members the fullest possible oppertunity to participate.
In that respect I see the AGM as the main instrument to allow this to happen
and hence, I am objecting to the short notice on those grounds.
> > Well we all have out personal preferences and mine is to actually
> > deal with a committee or group who, for once, organised something on
> > time and with enough notice that I could actually attend. I have
> > stated time and time again that ILUG events are organised on too
> > short a notice period and time and time again nothing is actually
> > done about it.
> Has it occurred to you that the ILUG is an *entirely* volunteer
> effort, run by individuals who put quite a considerable amount of work
> and effort into its running, without the expectation or realisation of
Has it occurred to you that the ILUG web site and
> mailing lists are turning into a pretty major resource for ILUs, and
> indeed for international LUs; and that the comfort and convenience of
> Noel Carroll esq. might be pretty far down the list of priorities?
It looks like you're not reading my arguments either.
> you want to change the way the ILUG is run, then I'm afraid you'll
> have to opt for (a) or (b) above.
Yes, I agree but my argument, and AGAIN I will state this seeing as people
like you Colm have not grasped this already, my argument is that the short
notice given this time prohibits me from doing either A or B. Do you see my
point now? Please tell me I'm not going to have to spell it out again. I'm
not campaigning and didn't start this as a campaign, but if people want to
see if I'm just all talk, then vote me onto the committee and see what
happens. My entire motivation is to get the running of a national and
growing organisation a bit tighter on the administration side to allow the
views of everyone to be heard and to make sure that everyone is as informed
as possible. Whether I'm a committee member or not, I feel these things
must be done and I'm prepared to speak up whether its a popular opinion or
Whingeing about the *volunteer*
> efforts of others without offering to contribute is no way to win
> yourself support or friends.
I have done some stuff for the ILUG. Not a lot maybe, but I have done it.
As regards volunteer effort, laudable as it is, and a lot of good work has
been done, but it is never acceptable to cover a shoddy administrative
effort with the excuse that all the work is voluntary. Either you're doing
something or you aren't. Its as simple as that.
> Colm Buckley at domain NewWorld Commerce
> Business: +353 1 4334334 / colm at domain nwcgroup.com /
Personal: +353 87 2469146 / colm at domain tuatha.org / http://www.tuatha.org/~colm/
The severity of the itch is proportional to the reach.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu 06 Feb 2003 - 13:10:48 GMT