RE: [PC-Bank] comments regards constitution...

[Buddrige David <david.buddrige@mitswa.com.au>]

> I think that the constitutional clause is sufficiently broad to cover both
> CB WA's partnership with CB Vic and the possible alliance with orgs such
> as GSI etc. I'm not even sure that we need to have a bylaw, we just _do_
> it, it's covered in general principal by the constitution so we can
> "affiliate with any organisation or Association which has  similar
> objectives." to our hearts content. 
> 
But the objectives of GSI for example are wildly different to those we would
propose - although they are compatible/complementary with each other...
GSI's objectives have nothing to do with computers, or technology in general
whereas ours are very specifically related to this... given that the
constitution will become a legally binding document, I'd hate for us to
shoot ourselves in the foot by bad-wording in it...

> The trick is going to be to make our _objectives_  cover the bases we need
> to cover. Once again broad does the job rather than finely defined. Eg, "
> to provide assistance in the form of technology to those in need" rather
> than " to donate computers to people with incomes below $x ", the "provide
> 
Agreed - we want to make anything in the constitution as braod as
possible...

> This brings up the issue of _who_ our members are anyway. I'm in favour of
> having the people we help become members if for no other reason than it
> helps cut down on the "us and them" mentality. "We are the technological
> elite and you are the tech illiterates" is _not_ going to help anyones
> 
Agreed - wholeheartedly. 8-)

> What I'm trying to avoid here is a "charitable organisation" mentality. If
> we're really going to try and help people dig themselves out of problems
> like long term unemployment then we're going to have to be supportive as
> possible by creating a situation that builds confidence ( something formal
> teaching does not do ).
> 
Agreed - wholeheartedly. 8-)

cheers

Dave. 8-)