[Phpug] IPUG constitution and other formalities.

[Ken Guest]

On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 10:33 AM, <kae at verens.com> wrote:

>
> sorry about this if people receive it three times!! may have had a hiccup
> at the SMTP server...
>
> Mark Dennehy wrote:
> <snip>
> >
> > 1) The KISS principle needs to be carved into the forehead of all on
> > committees. A large complex committee is a death knell. It becomes more
> > concerned with its own continuation than with the task supposedly at
> hand.
> > Stick to the absolute minimum committee required - at worst I would
> suggest
> > a chairperson, secretary and treasurer. Keep jobs such as PRO and similar
> > roles as "staff" roles (or "non-executive directors" if you want to be
> fancy
> > about it) and let them get on with things. The committee is meant to
> provide
> > strategy and direction, not day-to-day management.
> >
>
> agreed. I think the point of the committee is to build a "unity" of PHP
> developers in Ireland. It is not for the sake of having a committee. In
> that regard, it is important that we don't get bogged down in rules. A
> central administration, where "administration" means generally knowing what
> Irish PHP developers are up to, helping developers choose projects/groups
> to join, and organising events to help the previous-mentioned activities,
> is necessary, but beyond that, we don't need to get too grandiose.
>

Here, I think what we mean by committee/administration is really just a
mechanism of keeping
voluntary/co-opted organisers  "in-the-loop" and a way of keeping an eye on
funds etc.
The aim/goal of what we organise can be summarised by:
1. promote the use of php (that it's no longer a hobbyist language, used by
real businesses etc).
2. provide a means for members of the group to communicate amongst
themselves  about php and related topics. This to be done both online and
"offline" via regular meetings, conferences etc.



> > 2) On the constitution, something slightly different applies - restrict
> what
> > you intend the IPUG to do to something you can maintain long-term and
> codify
> > that in the constitution; other things can be added later on but a
> > wishy-washy general hand-waving of "we do everything
> php-promotion-related"
> > or similar doesn't do any real good. Also consider carefully entry *and*
> > exit procedures from the group.
>

<snip>

>
>
> I think the group of people on the PHPUG list (or IPUG as Ken calls it (I
> think i agree with that one... we'll need to agree on /something/)) are
> pretty easy going, but you could be right. The ILUG constitution does
> provide rules for that, but as far as I know, they've never been been
> tested (anyone?)
>

IPUG is more concise and quicker to type, isn't it ? ;-)
I don't know if the rules provided in the ILUG constitution have been
tested. Nobody, to my knowledge, has been 'dismissed' from the ILUG
committee.

> 3) On the formal structure, a "club" type arrangement (technically an
> unincorporated association) is very easy to set up, but has the
disadvantage
> (or advantage, depending on your viewpoint) that it is not bound by any
> third party to any set of rules, even its own. For example, if the chair
of
> the IPUG club ignores the IPUG club constitution and takes SugarCRM's
cash
> and spends it on chocolate cake
<snip>

>
> We need to be careful that doesn't happen here (not that I want to
> prematurely accuse the incoming treasurer!)


This is one of the reasons why I kick-started this discussion tbh - there
will hopefully be no occurrances of
anyone saying "that money was just resting in my account" [insert Fr. Ted
link here]. There is a certain type
of entity/association bank account that requires audits, as far as the guy
in Ulster bank told me. Perhaps that is
the way to go?


> > There are a few alternatives to the club structure but the most common
> one
> > I've seen is the limited company structure. It's more involved to set up
> > (though frankly it's harder to set up postgresql permissions the first
> > time), and it requires a bit more formality, but if you're getting in
> > significant amounts of money, it's probably a better arrangement. And in
> > day-to-day terms the only real drawbacks are that the secretary is
> > responsible for an annual report to the CRO.
>

That may be the option the UB guy was telling me about.


>
> > Oh, and (4) you might look into charitable status. The law on this isn't
> > really solid in Ireland (us not having real charities and all), but it
> might
> > be worth the look.
> >
>


and iirc charities can claim tax back on donations made to them. This would
be one way to
maximise funds for funding ipug/php.ie events such as conventions, I
suppose.


>
>
> on the ILUG constitution, I think it's a very good start, although it's
> pretty heavy on the legal side and light on the goals of the organisation.
> I'm not totally aware of how much emphasis is placed on the individual
> points, but on point 2.4, I am only aware of Dave Airlie and maybe David
> Neary as being kernel developers, unless the constitution has shifted since
> then?
>
> I'd recommend we come up with general goals that are achievable, measurable
> and flexible, and place them in the constitution.
>

Not a bad idea at all - that way we could, perhaps, fire the committee if
they're getting to relaxed/apathetic.



>
> not sure how large the committee should be, but seeing as it was reported
> there were 11 attendees at the last POTD, I'd say let's stick with the
> usual 4-person committee, as set out in the ILUG constitution.
>

Actually, the ILUG constitution as published on the linux.ie website
requires 6:
chairman, treasurer, secretary, PRO and 2 ordinary committee members.
The question is, I suppose, do we really need those 2 ordinary committee
members?


ken