Quoting Russell Coker (russell@coker.com.au):
I liked: During the discussion we had some input from members who were typically lurkers who seemed to feel that their property rights towards LUV were being infringed, this annoys me. I think that if someone chooses not to be involved in running an organisation then they should choose not to concern themselves with the details of how the organisation is to be run. Reminds me of my oft-quoted bit in the Linux User Group HOWTO, which _Wired_ magazine and others have cited as one of wellsprings of the 'do-ocracy' school of thought, elsewhere: The reason I spoke of "key" volunteers, above, is because, inevitably, a very few people will do almost all of the needed work. It's just the way things go, in volunteer groups. An anecdote may help illustrate my point: Towards the end of my long tenure as editor and typesetter of San Francisco PC User Group's 40-page monthly magazine, I was repeatedly urged to make magazine management more "democratic". I finally replied to the club president, "See that guy over there? That's Ed, one of my editorial staff. Ed just proofread twelve articles for the current issue. So, I figure he gets twelve votes."[...] I hope, Russell, that you aren't miffed at _me_ concerning LUV. I carefully stayed out of the recent AGM vote and surrounding disputation for a number of reasons, geography not least among them. (I merely offered the lessons of SVLUG's experience so that maybe someone can benefit from them.) And, seriously, if anyone is able to contribute material for the LUG HOWTO's section 7.1 Organisational Legal Issues, covering for Australian LUGs' benefit the relevant details of incorporation and tax law, I would be delighted. And I am glad to include divergent opinions, as I did with original LUG HOWTO maintainer Kendall G. Clark's and my differing views on exactly these matters.