[ILUG] ILUG AGM Announcement

[Niall Walsh]

Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:

>On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 02:31:02PM +0000, Niall Walsh wrote:
>  
>
>>Why?   Yes, I've read the rest of your comments, understand and agree 
>>with them (except that it is a waste of time) but I do not understand 
>>why this removes the issue from discussion at the AGM.
>>    
>>
>
>Because it is not relevant to the running of ILUG, or the operation
>of the ILUG committee.
>
>  
>
I believe it is relevant to the running of ILUG.  The website is a 
considerable part of our existance, and to the outside world (and one of 
our main aims is to promote Linux) it IS our existance.

>If they have good reasons, like preferring another open-content license,
>not owning all of the copyright or just plain personal preference is it
>in ILUG's interest to not have this content on the website?
>
>  
>
Well that is the question, are we better off with no control over the 
content of our site, no ability to edit it and no restriction which 
could discourage contributions, or are we better off with the content 
being under a license which ensures anyone can help improve it?

I'm not sure CC is the way to go, and if it is I'm not sure what sort of 
CC, perhaps something more DFSG like which states the rules any license 
must meet to be acceptable.   Anyway, my opinion is worth exactly the 
same as everyone else's reading this hence I would like the membership 
(well the representation at the AGM) to decide, not you, not me.

>(and remember, all authors agree to it being there no matter
>what).
>  
>
Where did I agree to any such thing?  I retain the copyright on the 
articles I have written and can withdraw them at will.

>Better is to simply suggest, on-list, that all content authors use a CC
>license, because we all have better things to do (namely going to a pub)
>rather than listening to pointless motions as the AGM merely to affirm a
>sense of righteousness.
>
>  
>
That is the question?   Does the membership agree with your opinion that 
this is pointless and should not be cared about by ILUG?    How do we 
find out what the membership thinks?   There is only one way at present, 
the AGM.

If everyone at the AGM shares your opinion that we shouldn't talk about 
this but should just get to the pub then that's fine, we'll waste 30 
seconds drinking time.

>>Let's take a simple example, I have rewritten some documents for the 
>>BLG, I did not have the option to edit the existing documents (and 
>>neither does anyone else other then the original author).   If content 
>>was placed in a wiki (as has been discusssed) then what happens then to 
>>the author's copyright?
>>    
>>
>
>The author retains copyright on their portions of it as written, and as
>long as the wiki is still the ILUG website I can't see a problem
>emerging.
>
>  
>
What!   As of right now, if you put my pages into a wiki and someone 
alters the content I have written (and retain the copyright for) then my 
copyright is being infringed upon and I would have a legal recourse!   
In fact, even without the wiki, people can still edit my content without 
my permission, infringing on my copyright!

>>>A motion that may be worth considering:
>>>
>>>	1.	That the membership endorse that the ILUG mailing list
>>>	be made subscriber-only.
>>>
>>>	I would hope that this motion would dramatically fail, but that
>>>	this would at least serve as backup for Colm when the bi-annual
>>>	thread on this list raises its ugly head. It'd be useful to
>>>	finally put the issue to rest.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Well why not propose the reverse if that's what you want?
>>    
>>
>
>Motion ettiquette demands that you never propose a status quo motion,
>that's pointless and again, a waste of time. 
>
>  
>
As I metioned in reply to Paul's email, it is not status quo, as of 
right now there is nothing to stop the list becoming subscriber posting 
only.

>>1.    That the membership endorse that the ILUG mailing list must
>>remain open to non-subscriber posting?
>>    
>>
>
>And if that was rejected, does that mean it can be subscriber-only?
>  
>
YES, exactly as it can now!

>Or should another motion be tabled? There's a reason status-quo
>motions are bad.
>  
>
There is no current position on this other then what is actually 
happening, is that not why you want a motion in the first place so when 
people ask they can be told the decision has been taken and that they 
have to wait for next year if they want to try and reverse it?

Niall Walsh