[AUUG-Talk]: Getting a Plan to move on

[Frank Crawford]

Steve,
	I disagree both with both your assertion and David's assertion.  The
motion to wind up AUUG was defeated, not to transfer everything over to
some other organisation and not to just deal with the Lion's Fund Award.

	In fact, you also have the issue that you actually have three
life-members to consider (I presume we can officially resign, but it
isn't just something we can just let lapse).

	You also seem to be very concerned about folding the incorporated
association.  Why not put together a proposal to the current board (if
they will talk) to become members of the board and move into take over?

	An incorporated association provides far more protection than an
unincorporated association, and is seen by more to be what would be
expected for such a group.

	There is nothing stopping AUUG changing direction or changing
leadership, but it would be better to work out a transition though the
current setup than expect everyone make changes.

Frank

On Mon, 2008-03-17 at 10:30 +1100, steve jenkin wrote:
> David Lloyd wrote on 17/3/08 2:44 AM:
> >
> > AUUG is dead. Plain and simple. The only reason it's alive is because
> > it has no idea what to do with the Lion's Fund Award.
> >
> > DSL
> >
> I'd dispute your assertion...
> There are at least 3 people (Lehey, Rothwell and ???) who are ready and
> willing to create a new entity.
> 
> The current incarnation of AUUG is dead - yep, 100% agree.
> 
> What's so hard about the current Board letting that happen?
> I guess the same reason that it was so hard to organise a) the
> conference b) the AGM and c) the Last Ballot:
>     the absence of Liz.
> 
> AUUG started to whither when branch conferences ceased.
> It started to die when the big national conferences with exhibitions
> were abandoned.
> Liz's sudden departure was always very threatening and turns out to have
> been fatal.
> 
> The dissolution ballot was meant to be the coup de grâce - to put it out
> of its misery - but it still lingers on.
>