Re: [activities] Nomination: Michael Chesterton

On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 1:39 PM,  <[email protected]> wrote:
>> James Dumay wrote:
>>> I really had no idea of the incident. I withdraw my nomination.
>>
>> That is probably the whole point. Dirty politics has made the slug
>> elections.
>
> Call it what you will. I prefer the equally emotive alternative
> description of 'common decency'.
>
>> 1) We have a vague comment made by someone who, as far as I know, is a
>> nobody. Note, I haven't been to a slug event in over  a decade, so other
>> people can point out any ongoing role I may not know about, but that
>> really isn't the point.
>
> He's not really a nobody. I'm actually more aware of him than I am of you.
>
> For those who are unaware, he assisted SLUG with running the Linux
> Australia stand at the Education Expo last year, and is a regular
> contributor to SLUGlets, a participant of last year's google
> highschool-age version of the summer of code (forgot the name), and an
> OLPC Friend.
>
> He is also a minor, and witnessed the action. Despite his youth, he is
> mature enough to knew full well that it was obscenely wrong, but not
> necessarily the best way to deal with it.
>
>> 2) Even when asked to provide details, they fail to provide full,
>> correct details
>
> He also decided (on my advice) to respect that #slug is a
> non-publicly-logged channel, and that channel logs of a known
> non-publicly-logged channel should ideally be published with permission.
>
>> 3) Unwisely someone else also provide vague comments that do no really
>> clarrify the situation at all.
>
> I also decided to respect any possible privacy concerns.
>
>> 4) We still do not know which IRC list it was on, when it occurred,
>> context, etc, etc, etc
>
> I am only aware of one slug IRC channel. #slug on freenode.
>
>> 5) No one has shown that it is relevant to the election. AFAIK, the only
>> capacity the committee has to refuse the nomination is if the nominees
>> and person nominated are not current slug members.
>
> The relevance was highlighted by you in your response at number 9.
>
> I believe that there is sufficient time between now and the AGM to enact
> any process of removing a member, if that member is actually a currently
> paid-up member for 2009.

So, for reference, I'm looking at
http://wiki.slug.org.au/existing_constitution which as far as I know
is a actually the pre-last-AGM constitution. I've CCed the current
committee - perhaps they could help by adding the current constitution
to the website.

>From what I can see, this is covered under section 11 of the constitution.

In summary, to discipline a member, the member would have to have
"persistently and wilfully acted in a manner prejudicial to the
interests of the association". If the committee decides to take
action, they must give the member 14 days to respond to the
allegations. This doesn't include the amount of time needed to give
notice of an extraordinary committee meeting needed to conduct a vote
on the matter (if one is needed; I'm not sure if it would be).

>> 6) If people does not think someone is suitable, it makes more sense to
>> nominate someone else and promote their case.
>
> Possibly so.
>
> But at the same time, the absence of opposition to someone's general
> behaviour representing an organisation, is actually positive reinforcement
> of that behaviour, and sets the precedence for the same to happen in the
> future.
>
>> 7) Diversity is the lifeblod of a nation and organisations.
>
> Yes, indeed.
>
> I wish there was more than two or so other women in a group of 30+. That
> would be a pleasant diversity to have at SLUG meetings.
>
> The prospect of sexist behaviour is not conducive to that happening.
>
>> 8) If this was a work matter, the management would be totally done over.
>> If you have a complaint made against you, AUSTRALIAN law requires full,
>> clear detais of any incident to be provided.
>
> The matter was actually dealt with at the time. There was no need for an
> inquiry.
>
>> 9) SLUG is an AUSTRALIAN organisation, subject to NSW and AUSTRALAN law.
>
> Indeed. Thank you for clarifying that.
>
>> 10) We are not subject to the seven naughty words of the hypocritic USA,
>> which is a morally, ethically and now financially bankrupt country.
>
> We are however subject to Australian Law, and the last time I checked,
> touching fronts or rears without permission was subject to at least one
> piece of legislation.
>
>> 11) I've been, briefly, on some IRC lists where fanny, if that was the
>> word, patting is the normal way of being friendly. See 4.
>
> I've also seen spam, porn and death threats on IRC channels and mailing
> lists. That doesn't make it correct behaviour.
>
>> 12) Making another guess, like bastard, prick in this country can be any
>> thing from an insult to congratulations. Perhaps some people eed to get
>> out more into the real world.
>
> As students, sysadmins, developers, etc, are we not already there?
>
> You may want to provide full clarification of your notion that we are in a
> fake world -- I'd really appreciate knowing if I was the subject of
> something like Ed TV (?).
>
>> 13) My 2c, from over three decades of being involved (all levels)  in
>> may community organisations is, that unless someone is an axe murder, I
>> really could care less. If they get off their  arse, another acceptable
>> AUSTRALIAN word, and do stuff, then you need them involved.
>
> The word's acceptability is not in question. However, The notion of
> patting someone on the bum or crotch is the issue.
>
>> Once you start discouraging people from being involved at what ever
>> level because they might offend someone, you start killing the
>> organisation.
>
> Does this include the people who might have been discouraged by the
> behaviour in question?
>
> Or, does other people being offended offend you?
>
> --
> SLUG Activities
> Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
>
-- 
SLUG Activities
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html