Tony Whitmore wrote:
> Just to confirm, John, Adrian and I have said we are not going to stand
> again for our current positions, so we would very much like new candidates
> to step up and take over the reins.
>
> If you are interested in standing, please say so you can be formally
> nominated and seconded.
>
I'll be candid with HL members and the committee. I have been a little
confused by the current committee's lack of agreement on how potential
nominees offer to stand. I get the impression that the current committee
are very busy people and where they had the time for the past few years
other commitments, certainly well deserved positive career developments,
have taken precedence, you old war horses:)
I am not a big IRC user and I tend only to see fellow HL members at
meetings, not all and the occasional email discussion with other members
so I am a ML and Soton meeting focussed member.
I do have a single concern about taking a committee position and I really
hope this is not seen as a criticism. Hants Lug as it stands is an
unincorporated association I believe. The current constitution looks great
and is obviously the result of much hard work, planning and careful
thought and very worthy of a committee to protect, uphold and implement
it.
However as an unincorporated association committee members are liable if
anything goes wrong. I was in this position when I was on a committee in
2000. The then Chair worked towards changing the organisation slightly so
that we all had limited liability of exactly £1. I understand that there
has not been a necessity to go to all the bother of turning HL into
something that protects the committee from liability thus far, the ML was
been closed and previously Linux was not as main stream as it is now which
does ironically increase the risk for a committee. Linux is set to be used
by more and more local business's and individuals; HL has a potential to
really expand the role as a local community pillar and support magnet.
As an example, I for one run a small(tiny) business, liability is limited
and share holders are responsible for up to the value of the shares if
something went wrong. That way we are protected (well we only loose our
profits) in the event we accidentally delete the Crown Jewels figuratively
speaking. I'm cash limited so as a potential committee member in the event
of say a law suit against the committee, for all the reasons I can't think
of, my business and career could be damaged irreparably.
I may be thinking in a very over cautious manner or subconsciously future
proofing? but perhaps the current committee or members can suggest why
liability is not a cause for concern. I'm really open to any discussion or
criticism here and totally happy to stand corrected and be in the wrong.
Again, I hope this email is not seen as a criticism or an attempt to put a
spanner in the works, I'm simply voicing a real concern.
If I was satisfied that liability was contained and or managed, or there
was a plan of action to do so, although I have deadlines until the end of
November perhaps this does not preclude me from offering to stand as a GO,
certainly this would be the first step for me on the road to taking a
higher responsibility role on the committee in the future or happy to
remain as a back bencher and ordinary member:)
Damian
--
Damian L Brasher
http://www.diap.org.uk - Quick and low-cost way to make an environment
more robust by backing up data in multiple places.
