[NTLUG:Discuss] Study Group...

[cbbrowne@godel.brownes.org]

On Tue, 28 Sep 1999 07:41:10 CDT, the world didn't break into rejoicing as
Steve Baker <sjbaker1 at airmail.net>  said:
> cbbrowne at godel.brownes.org wrote:
> > hat
> > > NTLUG is incorporated.  The bad news is also that NTLUG is incorporated. 
 I'm
> >  not
> > > elaborating any more than that.
>  
> > Being incorporated makes some things possible that would be impractical
> > without a formal organization.  That's as much elaboration as needs be
> > here now.
> 
> Please - I REALLY HATE THIS ATTITUDE:
> 
>    "Lots of black magic is going on behind the curtain - 
>     don't worry your little heads about it - it'll all
>     turn out OK in the end."
> 
> Two examples quoted from this thread:
> 
> "lots of little things are in process of being slightly more formalized"
> What things?   Tell us.  Maybe we don't want them to be more formalized.

For my part, setting up a bank account, and getting such stuff set up,
with the various little nagging details that are necessary to such.
Setting up a bank account for an organization requires more gratuitous
bureaucracy than setting up a bank account for one's self.

> Then "That's as much elaboration as needs be here now."
> That is REALLY demeaning to the average member.  If it mattered
> enough for you  to make a passing reference to it - then it matters
> enough to warrent a two sentence statement of what you mean by it.

Apparently it's fair for you to demand elaboration, but have no
corresponding responsibility to elaborate on your beliefs.  It wasn't
I that first declined to elaborate.

There are some things that I *won't* fully explain.

For instance, there was one recent discussion that shall remain *quite*
private concerning time and location of a transfer of the "Informal NTLUG"
monies so that they might be placed in the bank.

After all, if I blabbered out something like:
  "John, let's get together at 7:30 PM Friday at I-75 and Walnut Hill,
   so I can pass on to you the cash box containing $7000"
   (None of which details faintly correspond to reality, which is rather
   more mundane.)
this would publicize "to the world" a nice convenient place for someone
to enact a hold-up.

Call me paranoid; I *will* treat that sort of information as "sensitive,"
and have no intention of publicizing it widely.  (Except in the above
highly corrupted form.)

In terms of other stuff, all that should be taken out of my comment
was that I didn't feel like elaborating at the time.  You're sure not
encouraging me to feel *less* reticent...

> ...there have been others.
> 
> Incorporation wasn't something we ever voted for - or even asked
> for AFAIK - it was hinted at during one meeting - and in the next
> presented as a fact after the event.  Where was the debate?  When
> did we vote in the officers?

Bootstrapping a corporation is not unlike bootstrapping the Linux kernel.

Linux started with Linus Torvalds and Alan Cox, and has since grown to
include all of us.

Similarly, NTLUG Inc started with a set of would-be officers getting
together to "bootstrap" the corporation, and one of those "nagging
details" is indeed that of establishing the wider membership, which is
not completely well-defined at the moment.  Effectively, we're at the
"init.d" stage, and will be spawning some getty's Real Soon Now.

I'm sorry; I'm not from "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" country;
I'm instead from "peace, order, and good government" territory.  :-)
--
Windows NT: The Mister Hankey of operating systems
cbbrowne at ntlug.org- <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>