[ILUG] ILUG AGM Announcement

[Colm MacCarthaigh]

On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 03:56:31PM +0000, Niall Walsh wrote:
> 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.

Stop being silly. The website could dissapear tomorrow, and the majority
of members wouldn't even notice. 

> 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.

But what do you think this decision will actually achieve that can't
be achieved by just asking the content authors? Something which is
the inevitable result of a motion anyway.

> >(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.

All content authors that have submitted content to the ILUG website have
very clearly consented (albeit implicitly) to their copy being publicaly
available via the ILUG website. 

Do you actually think that there is a serious danger of a content author
taking issue with ILUG's use of their words?

> >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.

What I've tried to explain is that what the membership thinks does not
matter in this respect, it is what the individual content authors think
that matters. The entire membership could have a unanimous resolution
demanding the CC licensing of all articles, but it wouldn't make a bit
of difference unless the content authors agreed. 

Therefore, to my mind, this issue is best directed to the authors rather
than the membership at a GM. But whatever, this thread is wasting more
time at this point.

> >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!

It's not nearly so clear. What consitutes a derivative work isn't nearly
so simple. Frankly I think you'd have a *very* hard time making a case
if your own words were credited to you and other's to themselves. But
it's an almost complete non-issue. Are you likely to take legal
recourse? Is any contributer to the website? 

Is there an impending masse of disgruntled former contributers waiting
to pounce with their crack legal teams if their content gets changed in
even the slightest way?

> 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.

Well we have a very sensible list admin.

> >And if that was rejected, does that mean it can be subscriber-only?
> > 
> >
> YES, exactly as it can now!

Note the "endorse" in my proposal. Motions arn't binding, committee
members and ILUG admins are volunteers they can do what they like, we
trust them to act sensibly. We can't require anything of them, there is
just no mechanism for enforcement other than well not-electing them
again. 

Motions serve as a mandate, an illustration of how the membership feel
on something. In this instance, I had hoped that having an easy recorded
vote clearly showing that the majority of AGM atendees thought a
subscriber-post-only list was a bad idea would serve to help quickly end
the nonsense threads that develop. Of course now a nonsense thread has
developed, so bad me.

-- 
Colm MacCárthaigh                        Public Key: colm+pgp at stdlib.net