[Lopsa-regional-project] Bylaws (aka "...the horror, the horror...")

[Travis]

On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 07:59:42AM -0400, Michael Tiernan wrote:
> > Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2008 23:44:54 -0500
> > From: Travis
> [...]
> > What benefit does having bylaws and a mini-board bring to a local chapter?
> [...]
> I have to ask the group two questions:
> 1) Is there a *harm* in having bylaws or a board (mini, maxi or extra medium)?

Again, I point to my question:  what benefit will it bring?  I (and it sounds
like others) are not yet convinced that it's a worthwhile endeavor at this 
time.  

In the Austin case, the initial benefit to the group was just marshalling the
list of people together so we could all start meeting.  And providing a
mailing list.  Sure, that's a measurable (but small) benefit for a group of
people that are pretty much on their own at a local level.  We don't accept
money for LOPSA and we don't have assets associated with them.   We have no
plans to incorporate (which would be the safe thing if we ever chose to have
money or assets).  LOPSA doesn't provide us any monetary support right now
(mostly because when this chapter started, we didn't need it and I felt
LOPSA was better off directing their funds into sustaining the national
group functions).  

Ok, so you think we need a governing body for a local chapter.  I could see
that where you have a sustained membership of dozens or hundreds of people
showing up to meetings all the time.  But we don't.  We're good if we can
have 8-10 of the 3 dozen people in our area show up.  It's ad-hoc.  We're
all adults here, if we have disagreements on how something should be done
at the local level, we just figure it out.



> 2) What makes you think that *your* view of a local chapter is the
> same as someone else's? What *if* someone wished to create a local
> chapter that had more than a half-dozen drinking buddies looking for
> an excuse to get out of the house? 

Well, the fact that several people who are involved in other local
chapters and affiliates lends a bit of credence to the point I'm making.

[strawman deleted]

Really, I'm just not going to respond to that particular argument.

> 
> So, why don't we, instead of finding what's wrong with the idea, apply
> those unique system administration skills to the question and provide
> positive effort to making it all better?

I'm not against bylaws.  I'm against needlessly creating bureacracy to
try and fix a problem that doesn't exist.  It's the old solution looking
for a problem mindset that we often encounter in our day-to-day work.

If board@ is looking to provide some more tangible benefit to the local
chapters (such as assets and monetary support), then sure, I completely
understand the need for formalizing things.  But right now, all I see is
something coming down from on high without any explanation of why.  It's
just a "oh, we had this requirement and we forgot to tell you even though
you've been operating without it for some time now, please hurry up and
fix it."

What Bob is trying to do is understand both sides of the argument so he
and the board can determine if the requirement is a) still needed at
this time and b) what effort is (or should be) necessary to implement it.
He's doing the right thing by bring it up.  We're doing the right thing
by challenging the need for it to make sure the board really is working
in our best interest.

Travis
-- 
Travis Campbell
hcoyote at ghostar.ath.cx