Re: How the council breached their constitution - membersregister request section 7

The specific constitutional basis for disciplining members is S(11) of 
the current constitution [1], which reads:

 > (1) A complaint may be made to the committee by any person that a 
member of the association:
 >(a) has refused or neglected to comply with a provision or provisions 
of this constitution, or
 >(b) has wilfully acted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the 
association.
 >(2) The committee may refuse to deal with a complaint if it considers 
the complaint to be trivial or vexatious in nature.
 >(3) If the committee decides to deal with the complaint, the committee:
 >(a) must cause notice of the complaint to be served on the member 
concerned, and
 >(b) must give the member at least 14 days from the time the notice is 
served within which to make submissions to the committee in connection 
with the complaint, and
 >(c) must take into consideration any submissions made by the member in 
connection with the complaint.
 >(4) The committee may, by resolution, expel the member from the 
association or suspend the member from membership of the association if, 
after considering the complaint and any submissions made in connection 
with the complaint, it is satisfied that the facts alleged in the 
complaint have been proved and the expulsion or suspension is warranted 
in the circumstances.
 >(5) If the committee expels or suspends a member, the secretary must, 
within 7 days after the action is taken, cause written notice to be 
given to the member of the action taken, of the reasons given by the 
committee for having taken that action and of the member’s right of 
appeal under clause 12.
 >(6) The expulsion or suspension does not take effect:
 >(a) until the expiration of the period within which the member is 
entitled to appeal against the resolution concerned, or
 >(b) if within that period the member exercises the right of appeal, 
unless and until the association confirms the resolution under clause 
12, whichever is the later.

Could I suggest that a motion similar to:

"Pursuant to S(11) of Linux Australia's constitution, we, the 
undersigned, MOVE that DANIEL POCOCK be disciplined for wilfully acting 
in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the association by scraping 
list member email addresses without consent [insert list reference] and 
now forward this to Council for their consideration."

be moved on list?

This provides a constitutional basis for disciplinary action, and 
specifies in detail the manner in which the constitution has been 
breached. This makes it harder to dispute, and provides an evidentiary 
basis for Council's decision making, and provides procedural compliance, 
for example, if the matter got escalated to the Office of Fair Trading.

Kind regards,

Kathy Reid




[1] https://linux.org.au/about-us/constitution/


On 19/12/22 11:00, Steven Ellis via linux-aus wrote:
> I second this motion.
>
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 12:57 PM Michael Cordover via linux-aus 
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>     On Sun, Dec 18, 2022, at 18:44, Matt Cengia via linux-aus wrote:
>>>     With that in mind, I put the email addresses from the
>>>     [email protected] mailing list on CC.
>>
>>     Given that
>>     https://lists.linux.org.au/mailman/listinfo/linux-aus states that
>>     "/The subscribers list is only available to the list
>>     administrator/", this does not feel like an OK for you to have
>>     done, and it's not obvious how you gathered this list, unless you
>>     just sought anybody who had contributed to the list over the past
>>     X years.
>
>     Regardless of how this information was obtained (a matter which I
>     think should also be investigated), Daniel's actions here are
>     egregious. They stand in stark contrast to the values of Linux
>     Australia, in particular those of community and respect.
>
>     Deliberately publishing the personal information of a large number
>     of people, without consent, in response to a thread explicitly
>     describing concerns with such disclosure, is at best immoral. It
>     is inflammatory and designed to cause upset. I can see no
>     justification for it, and it demands a swift and serious response.
>
>     I think the appropriate response is to expel Daniel Pocock from
>     Linux Australia, ban him from associated events, and ban him from
>     the mailing lists. I urge the Council to begin that process
>     immediately.
>
>     mjec
>     _______________________________________________
>     linux-aus mailing list
>     [email protected]
>     http://lists.linux.org.au/mailman/listinfo/linux-aus
>
>     To unsubscribe from this list, send a blank email to
>     linux-aus-unsubscribe-cunTk1MwBs8iFSDQTTA3OBCuuivNXqWP@public.gmane.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-aus mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.linux.org.au/mailman/listinfo/linux-aus
>
> To unsubscribe from this list, send a blank email to
> linux-aus-unsubscribe-cunTk1MwBs8iFSDQTTA3OBCuuivNXqWP@public.gmane.org

_______________________________________________
linux-aus mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linux.org.au/mailman/listinfo/linux-aus

To unsubscribe from this list, send a blank email to
linux-aus-unsubscribe-cunTk1MwBs8iFSDQTTA3OBCuuivNXqWP@public.gmane.org