🚀 go-pugleaf

In <121@quark.ansto.gov.au> frank@iris.ansto.gov.au (Frank Crawford) writes:

>...  (Just as an aside, there is a
>sub-committee working on it and I though Peter was on it?)

Not me (unless someone forgot to tell me I was on it :-).  I believe
that there are one (maybe two?) people from Canberra who are on the
committee.  Ross Hand is on it and perhaps John Barlow?

Without meaning to cast aspersions on the sub-committee members (or the
committee), it did cross my mind that a sub-committee is sometimes a
good way for a committee to delay dealing with an issue.

>	... COSUG (is that the right
>name for Canberra), ...

Yes, at the moment, COSUG =  "Canberra Open Systems Users Group".  Not
all COSUG members like the name, but it is better than CUUG (which
would follow the AUUG "logic" :-)

> ...	4) There should be some limit on the size of the chapter
>committee size, if only to make elections sensible.  More than that a
>very large committee is unworkable.  

I did not see the chapter committee being as formal a body as the AUUG
management committee.   So less formal election arrangements would
apply.  This could well differ from chapter to chapter.  There could
be some quite large chapters, but also some quite small ones.

> ...	6) Membership of chapters by Institutional members is a much
>more difficult issue (and not addressed in the original proposal).  One
>possibility is that Institutional members may join one (two?) chapters
>(the chapter receiving 25% of an individual membership) and if they wish
>to join additional chapters then they need to pay an additional fee.

hhhmmmmm ...  Institutional members pay $325 to join, and individuals
pay $78 to join.  2 times 25% of $78  = $39.  So the chapters are
getting up to 12% of the institutional membership fees and at least 25%
of the individual memberships.  The membership report of 1/8/91 showed
227 institutional members and 378 individuals.  By my back of a
postcard calculations the total institutional membership fees is more
than twice the total individual fees.  Yet the chapters would receive a
lesser portion of the institutions funds.  Seems like we may have to
think some more about the break up of institutional fees.

>	7) Funding is obviously one of the major issues.  The amounts
>you have specified are probably too small, but that can be adjusted
>later (i.e. 25% (~$20/head) won't really cover all the activities at the
>local level).  Some of the other money allocated to chapters will
>probably have to go "directly" to them.    ...

You are probably right.  But we probably need to run with the chapters
(or at least a chapter) for a while to see what we expect the actual
figures to be.

> The other issue in funding is
>the indirect costs.  Particularly the use of various AUUG services.
>WAUUG is unlikely to use the secretariat much, whereas SWIGS would.  Is
>this an issue that we should worry about?  Personally I think not
>because it would be too difficult, but these costs would then be swept
>into the general chapter bucket.

I think the use of the Secretariat is something that could be montiored
and managed by the management committee.  If the Secretariat feels
overworked then I'm sure they will let us know about it :-)

>	8) Rules governing the reporting probably need to be tighter.
>Brief reports probably need to be submitted to the AUUG Management
>committee at every meeting (both from the Chapter chairman (as a
>separate item?) and the Secretary/Treasures (through the AUUG Treasurer)).

I don't think we should force this task onto the chapters.  What
problem is it solving?  If we make it too onerous, they just won't do it
or they will spend time reporting to the management committee that could
be more productively spent organising the chapter.

>A financial statement will also have to be submitted at the close of the
>AUUG Financial year (currently 31st May).

Yes.

>	9) Chapter Affiliates.  It would be nice if everyone was a member
>of AUUG, but we are probably stuck with them.  Anyway, their fee should
>be "at least 40%" of the AUUG membership (currently you have "equal to
>40%").  

I agree.  I originally had though of it as "at least 40%" but it lost
something in the typing. :-)

>...  I agree with the principles you state, however, they will
>strongly disadvantage WAUUG (particularly regarding voting rights).
>I think this item needs much further discussion.

Yet, if we can have a chapter run by people who are not AUUG members
is it really an AUUG chapter?

Peter