<20080916111513.5708F82857@???> <53962.152.78.237.12.1221564884.squirrel@81.178.46.205>
X-Priority: 5 (Lowest)
Message-ID: <61d1ef82d4f175137dcc3e35ab3252ae@localhost>
X-Sender: tony@???
Received: from srv-gw06.tauntons.ac.uk [212.219.117.82] with HTTP/1.1 (POST);
Tue, 16 Sep 2008 12:51:46 +0000
User-Agent: RoundCube Webmail/0.1-rc2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 12:34:44 +0100 (BST), "Damian Brasher"
<lug@???> wrote:
> Tony and Alan,
>
> you don't want me to start dissecting the threads regarding the AGM thus
> far.
I don't want a dissection of the thread, but you have accused me of being
unreasonable in this discussion[1]. I'd like to understand what has made
you think this of me, and from there understand what, if anything, I can do
about it. To aid me in this, I asked only for you to highlight the mails in
which this unreasonableness occured. Otherwise I will have to assume they
are unjustified allegations.
> I have already accepted that the current committee have been busy.
> Suffice to say there are about 6 emails and Adrian has tried to
informally
> and in a friendly way offer committee places. You tend to place a link to
> the constitution in response to any question asked.
You can't "offer" places to anyone. It's an election. All serving members
can do is highlight whether they are prepared to stand again for election
to their current post. There is not now, nor has there been, any thing to
stop people standing against serving incumbents. Nor is there any way to
"offer" places to other people (apart from short-term co-optings which are
covered by... the constitution).
If I refer to the constitution I do so to answer questions asked. Any
further explanations are merely attempts to distill the constitution or
clarify how things have worked in practice in the past. That doesn't change
the actual processes which should occur.
> This feels abrupt and has led to me retracting my offer to stand as GO
> just the once, not repeatedly and have offered to stand again.
This is a semantic argument but what I actually said was "changing your
mind repeatedly about standing yourself", rather than repeatedly retracting
your offer. You retracted your offer once (thus far) but changed your mind
more than once.
> So it makes
> everyone jumpy. Hugo then is asked to again to be returning officer.
This is the correct procedure as laid down in our constitution.
> Quite
> frankly Adrian's first declaration in an email dated Sun, August 17 was
> enough for me and I replied in an appropriately friendly manner, you took
> exception to this.
I assume you mean this e-mail? [3] In that e-mail you asked if there's a
"slot free" and said you would be willing to stand. I clarified that it's
an election and anyone meeting the requirements can stand for any post.
This is one of the wonderful things about democracy and I would hate for
someone with a burning desire to help run the LUG not step forward because
they saw all the committee roles as "taken". (I would also hate for them to
be put off by this discussion but I suspect we're beyond that point.)
In repsonse to your question about the rules and regulations regarding
elections, I pointed you to... the rules and regulations regarding
elections. I fail to see the unreasonableness in this. It's a short,
clearly worded document which described the mission and governance of the
group. Any member who has anything more than a passing interest in the LUG
should probably read it.
>I you both want every single post and detail you can, I
> don't see why and it won't be for a couple of days.
I would like the evidence of the unreasonableness of which I have been
accused, yes.
Thanks,
Tony
[1]
http://hantslug.org.uk/lurker/message/20080916.111513.dcbcee76.en.html
[2]
http://hantslug.org.uk/lurker/message/20080916.074412.b38a9fdc.en.html
[3]
http://hantslug.org.uk/lurker/message/20080817.183121.6a66a817.en.html
