[AUUG-Talk]: Re: Don't close AUUG down!

Malcolm Caldwell malcolm.caldwell at cdu.edu.au
Tue Dec 11 11:43:22 EST 2007

I also support essentially what Greg has proposed.

I stopped being a member because I could not see value in the membership
fee.  For me, it was only worth paying the membership if I were to go to
the conference, and as my job role changed this was no longer possible.

The question for the bush lawyers is: can AUUG Inc continue or does it
have to transform to AUUG non-Inc?  Is that even possible?

The issue seems to be liability and liability insurance.  If AUUG does
not run events this issue is reduced, but are there still issues to be

Is there another similar organisation that could take up the AUUG mantle
and allow us to operate a non-financial organisation? (As perhaps a
Linux Australia Unix SIG?)

On Tue, 2007-12-11 at 11:18 +1100, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
> On Tuesday, 11 December 2007 at 10:19:19 +1100, Christopher Vance wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 09:45:02AM +1100, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
> >> So: for tomorrow please consider transitioning AUUG to a non-financial
> >> institution as described above.  For those of you who don't know, I
> >> should point out that the main web server (www.auug.org.au) is run
> >> free of charge by Internode.  About the only costs I can see are the
> >> $20 odd per year needed to renew the domain.
> >
> > Ongoing costs include about $1500/year for accountants fees wrt our
> > tax return.  This could probably be reduced but we don't have anybody
> > offering to do it for free.
> If we don't have any money, do we need a tax return and an accountant?
> Even if we have to file a null tax return, I'd expect to be able to do
> that ourselves without too much difficulty.
> > Other things cost too.  We've cancelled our phone and fax.  We still
> > have Public Liability Insurance, a Post Office Box, etc., etc.
> Sure, but again, with what I'm proposing, we wouldn't need that
> either.  If we run a conference, that would be for money, and we'd
> have to factor these issues into the equation, but that's a separate
> issue.
> > I'm sure more stuff can be axed, but the organization cannot survive
> > long without income, and only by consuming all the funds we still
> > have available.
> No, what I'm suggesting would survive.  You've already seen one or two
> people saying "this is the way we do it".  In Adelaide, the ADUUG
> survived for over 10 years without any money.
> > In that sort of situation, I'm not going to be hanging around long
> > enough to guess when "trading while insolvent" starts, and things
> > get more interesting than I'd be happy with.
> The issue is "trading".  We wouldn't do that.
> > If you think non-financial is the way to go, please offer yourself
> > for election to the board on such a platform.
> Already done, and you've seen it.  I've offered myself for election to
> the board twice in the last month or two, the second time with this
> agenda.  The offer still stands.
> You'll note, BTW, that all replies except yours have been in favour of
> the proposition.  I've also had many others privately.  I appreciate
> that you have real concerns about the viability, but we have enough
> evidence of it working in practice.
> > And proxies are being accepted by email if you can't attend
> > personally.
> Note that I'm not a member, and I don't intend to renew now.  I think
> one of the really big things that killed AUUG as we know it is that
> most people don't see any advantage in paying $125 for a membership
> that doesn't really buy them anything.  However, board members are
> exempt from membership fees.
> > Your original mail was not ignored from malice or from any bad
> > feeling.
> Malice didn't cross my mind.  I'm glad there are no bad feelings.
> > The three of us on the board are all very busy, and have lots of
> > things which make communication and thought less instant than we'd
> > like.  We had also had another offer of somebody to be Secretary
> > before yours was sent, although that's not fully resolved yet.
> Maybe it's time to reconsider, then.  I'm available now.  There's also
> the question of other board members.
> Given the shortness of time, still not having a secretary and some
> issues that others raised about the timeliness of the AGM and the
> question of whether decisions made there can be valid, what do you
> think of postponing the AGM until February?  Is there some reason why
> it has to be now?
> Greg
> --
> See complete headers for address and phone numbers.
> _______________________________________________
> auug-announce - announcements from AUUG Inc.
> auug-announce at auug.org.au
> http://www.auug.org.au/mailman/listinfo/auug-announce

More information about the Talk mailing list