[Phpug] constitution and committee, et al

[Rory Browne]

> You can refer to the PEAR constitution if you questions, and if things
> aren't that clear, I'll be here if you have questions about it:
> http://url.ie/ln5
>

I don't think we should necessarly clone the pear constitution, just because
it has more of a basis in PHP-ness than
the one we have now. If there are any particular articles/clauses in the
PEAR constitution, that you feel should be in
ours then, by all means propose them, but failing that, I don't think
there's any valid purpose to rebuilding our constitution
on PEAR foundations rather than the ILUG constitution foundation that we
used, and heavilly modified and customised,
based on input from this list.

We could start with the PEAR one and add the same stuff, but I don't see the
point.




> Now on with IPUG, I have to say one quick thing, the name should be
> Ireland PHP User Group in my opinion as it's not only Irish in there
> but the people from Ireland (Which are a big difference) and for a
> second reason, all other user groups are using the name of the place
> they are from. Atlanta PHP UG, London PHP UG, Sydney PHP UG, Utah PHP
> UG (Of course the french are using "french" and not "France" but...
> the french are french (wink wink Stef :)).


I disagree. I think we should retain the word "Irish". When using a place as
an adjective, it is typical for towns and cities, to use the raw place name
( eg Galway Mountains ), but when using a country ( for most countries ),
it's generally the 'sh', 'ian', 'ion' or something like that that is used (
eg "Irish Mountains", "French Fries", "Canadian carrots", etc ). Of course
the main exception to this would be countries described by acronyms ( eg
USA, UAE, UK ) - USA-ian doesn't really make sense.

As you say the French use "French" and not France. Is there a Canada, or
Australia.



>
>
> Having the social headquarters in Cork is something that is also
> something I'd support. Dubs have enough recognition by now :))
>

Agree with the principle, but I'd go for Galway instead. Cork have enough
recognition too :p.



> Anyways, I know what I just explained basically involves rewriting the
> constitution as there wouldn't be specific positions but instead
> involves a board of members with the same amount of rights.


If you wish to reduce the number of named positions, by all means, but I
fail to see how that affects anything more than one article in the
constitution  ( not including clean-up of-course ). I certainly can't see
the point in re-writing the thing.


>
>
> >From what I have seen with user groups/open source groups the solution
> that works (and worked) the best so far is the board members - one
> president (One elected vice president in case the president is leaving
> or going on holidays). The elected board members have equal rights and
> each votes means "1"/"one". The votes are more democratic and someone
> more "crooked" (Not saying it's the case here) would not have as much
> power as expected but everyone together is very powerful.


I believe that it is a one-person-one-vote anyway. If  not, then I would
fully support making that more explicit.