Incorporation redux

Thu Dec 8 04:12:15 UTC 2005

On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 07:51:38PM -0500, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> billt-lxSQFCZeNF4 at public.gmane.org wrote:
> 
> >Actually the structure was something that TLUG lacked. The death of Jan made that very obvious. As for other umbrella groups being available, the people who initiated the incorporation (of which you were one) felt that no such group provided the structure that GTALUG ended up offering.
> >  
> >
> First off, I was _not_ one of the people who started the incorporation. 
> I was involved in a few exploratory meetings, came to the conclusion 
> that the activity was pointless (and said so publicly), and dropped out 
> long before any real effort was undertaken. Anyone involved is invited 
> to check their records.

Simply because you dropped out didn't mean the process didn't continue without you nor did it mean that the people involved required your permission to proceed.

> 
> As for filling the vacuum left by Jan, that's a people issue not an 
> infrastructure issue. Arguably the sudden (but far less tragic) 
> departure of Laszlo many years previous to Jan's death was an even 
> greater loss -- yet we coped. TLUG can survive the loss of anyone here 
> and keep going just fine. The "structure" of TLUG as we've known it 
> could survive the dissolution of GTALUG tomorrow and hardly anyone would 
> notice. People who volunteered to help GTALUG could still do their good 
> work within an unincorporated LUG without diminishing the value of their 
> work.

Unlike you, I had to deal with the loss of Jan. Survival of this club can be attributed more to my persistence than to anyone else during the two years following Jan death. As for TLUG surviving the dissolution of GTALUG you are dreaming. To do that we would officially have to dissolve the mailing list (not transfer it) for legal reasons. 

Most of the volunteers today are post incorporation so I see no reason why these people would stick around after the corporation would dissolve. All the contacts with industry and government are contacts through these same volunteers so I doubt that those people would continue to support TLUG without incorporation especially since an unincorporated TLUG can't provide tax benefits to them.
> 
> All the signs have been -- and not a single argument here has challenged 
> the notion -- that GTALUG was created to fix something that was never 
> broken. Having a corporation doesn't magically make the website easier 
> to manage or spam easier to extract from mailing lists. Nor does it 
> simplify volunteer recruitment. In fact, it complicates things because 
> of the costs and extra paperwork involved.
> 
Your view here is irrelevent for two reasons. The first is that the people who did run TLUG, which you seem to forget you are not part nor have been part of for as long as I have been volunteering, did believe that incorporation will help and thus went through the process to get it. Secondly now that the incorporation is a fait accompli arguing for its neccessity is irrelevent. The people who run the group have chosen the model they are following not by arguing on a mailing list but by lining up to help.

> >Everyone knows the vision: To advocate linux and the open source communities within Toronto and the GTA by providing a forum for people to get together and discuss the topics among interested people.
> >
> 
> Such a limited goal (one can hardly call it vision) is easily handled 
> without incorporation. The forums are provided by websites, meetings and 

Again this is also an irrelevent statement. The people who run this club chose the model of incorporation to handle this limited goal.

> mailing lists, and none of that requires incorporation. Indeed, the vast 
> majority of LUGs worldwide -- including those I have visited in cities 
> such as Paris, Sydney, São Paulo and Tokyo -- are not incorporated, yet 
> they manage to have high quality meetings and mailings -- not to mention 
> social events -- just the same. Having a national body that is 
> incorporated (Linux Verband, Japan Linux Association, AFUL, Linux 
> Australia) which unincorporated local groups can use for infrastructure 
> as necessary is a globally proven, efficient and successful model. Even 
> Linux International can be (and has been) used in this context. And it 
> also worked in Canada, for many years before GTALUG existed.

Arguing that other LUGs haven't incorporated isn't an argument. The affairs of other LUGs dictate how they organize. The affairs and circumstances of TLUG were such that those in charge decided that incorporation was the best route.

> 
> The only time local LUG incorporation is normally considered is when 
> there is a desire to do something substantial beyond meetings and 
> mailings. Usually the nature of that desire is considered before 
> incorporating (not after), and it's rarely done without getting a broad 
> consensus of the pre-incorporation community. This is something that the 
> founders of GTALUG most certainly never did.

Again this is an irrelevent statement. Simply because other LUGs believe they need grandiose plans to justify incorporation doesn't mean that TLUG needed such grandiose plans to justify it.

> 
> And as for the name... it's completely incorrect that the incorporators 
> could not use the name TLUG for legal reasons. I have a very detailed 
> explanation of why, but I suspect that to many this thread has been 
> tiresome.
> 
The incorporation could use the name but it would have required written permission from the board in Toledo. I didn't think this would have been a major obstacle, but those on the committee at the time felt that it was not worthwhile to pursue that avenue. My opinion was in the minority at the time and thus we decided on a new name and moved on to the next set of problems to tackle.

> 
> Those of us who hoped for rational debate and understanding about a 
> greater purpose for incorporation, without personal attack, have been 

Ultimately there is nothing to debate about. The incorporation is done and it is the corporation that runs this club. Continually complaining about it on the mailing list is counter productive and shows a lack of respect to the people that put in the time and effort to organize it.
> sadly disappointed. The founders and directors of GTALUG, who are 
> generally very good and well-meaning people, just can't seem to grasp 
> what's being asked for, and continuance of this thread is likely to 

No they don't grasp what is being asked for, and more importantly don't care. It comes down to a choice each individual on this mailing list has to make. You may either support the club going forward under its present structure or you may not. The people on the board support it. They don't really care what the people that don't support believe. If you feel that what is being done is wrong you can become a member and run for election to the board next year and change the direction of the club. Nothing is stopping you from doing so.

Bill
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml