<d95899affe493b6a9eef31db756dddbd@localhost>
<48241.152.78.237.12.1221486292.squirrel@81.178.46.205>
<9d6d29a80809151218l45fe2708n5bd11cca2f26dead@???> <60907.192.168.2.23.1221548860.squirrel@192.168.2.150>
X-Priority: 5 (Lowest)
Message-ID: <bda13ae89603180b919a97f2a1f53fd6@localhost>
X-Sender: tony@???
Received: from srv-gw06.tauntons.ac.uk [212.219.117.82] with HTTP/1.1 (POST);
Tue, 16 Sep 2008 07:44:12 +0000
User-Agent: RoundCube Webmail/0.1-rc2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 08:07:40 +0100 (BST), "Damian Brasher"
<lug@???> wrote:
> Graham Bleach wrote:
>
>> I haven't seen any contradictory advice on how to stand from the
>> committee members, so I'm rather puzzled by your confusion, but in any
>> case Tony has clarified how candidates should proceed.
>
> You can't have read all the posts then.
Can you provide links to the posts in the archives? I would like to make
sure any confusion is removed from what is a very simple process. (For
example, see the way Ian did so last night.)
>> Such a modification to the constitution would take time to prepare,
>> discuss and amend. I personally see little value in doing so, nor do I
>> wish to spend my time and/or money engaging the services of lawyers
>> discovering what, if anything HantsLUG is liable for. The liability of
>> your company, which carries out professional services in return for a
>> fee, may be quite different.
>
> Engaging the services of lawyers is not the suggestion. That's like
> predicting the weather.
Yes, predicting the actions of something random and seemingly
uncontrollable is hard work!
> The fact that HL does have a committee and
> constitution implies addition responsibilities.
It does, and those responsibilities are laid out in that constitution. I'm
not a lawyer so I'm not saying there aren't other responsibilities required
by law. But I will say that I bet most social / enthusiast clubs like ours
in this country aren't incorporated.
>> You appear to be asking other members to do this work as a
>> precondition of putting yourself forward for the committee. If they
>> have enough free time to do so, I would encourage them to instead
>> stand for one of the roles themselves. I feel it would be a better use
>> of their time ;-)
>>
>
> I am encouraging the current committee pave the way safely for a new
> committee.
By doing what, precisely? To be honest Damian, it seems like you're
actively trying to put people off from standing by using scare tactics
whilst changing your mind repeatedly about standing yourself. With an
unusually high number of people standing down from the committee this time
around what is actually needed is encouragement and not intimidation.
Tony
