Michael Davies nomination (was Re: [Linux-aus] Nominations page - updated)

[Michael Davies]

<quote who="Pia Smith">

On that note, I'd like to nominate Michael Davies for an ordinary
member. > I'm not sure how much he will want _any_ community> responsibility next year after LCA :) but he is a shining example to the
community. He is organised, energetic, fair, politically correct and
a wonderful person. I'll ask whether you accept before putting
the nomination up ;) Michael?

Hi all,


I accept Pia's nomination. Thank you Pia for your confidence (pulled the
wool over your eyes :-)

About Michael Davies:


Michael would like to elected to Linux Australia as an ordinary committee
member. After the experience of leading the organising of Linux.Conf.Au
2004 Michael thinks he could help Linux Australia make it to the next
level. He is passionate about open-source and free software, and wants to
make a difference.

Michael has been part of the local Adelaide Linux community since about
Red Hat 5.0. Since that time he's been an active member of LinuxSA, the
local South Australian LUG, and a less active member of AUUG. Through a
number of installfests and more recently Linux.Conf.Au, Michael has shown
he can get things done. By day Michael works as a software engineer or a
large multi-national company, doing everything from embedded software
development to web applications, leading software teams, and managing
customers.

He thinks Linux Australia should be truely representative of LUGs all
around the country, and should strive to have good working relationships
with other groups such as AUUG, the ACS, and other such professional
associations. Michael feels sorry for the organisers of Linux.Conf.Au
2005 and wants to help ease their load.

Known affiliations and biases: LinuxSA and AUUG member, Linux,
open-source, free sofware and GNOME zealot :-)

[David Lloyd]

Hmmmm....

He is organised, energetic, fair, politically correct and a
wonderful person. I'll ask whether you accept before putting the
nomination up ;) Michael?

lol at politically correct - no he's not, he's just better at thinking before
he opens his mouth than most others ;-P That's a much better reason to elect
him than being politically correct.

By day Michael works as a software engineer or a large multi-national
company, doing everything from embedded software development to web
applications, leading software teams, and managing customers.

Anyone could have sworn you were a full-time conference organiser over the
last year...

He thinks Linux Australia should be truely representative of LUGs all
around the country, and should strive to have good working relationships
with other groups such as AUUG, the ACS, and other such professional
associations. Michael feels sorry for the organisers of Linux.Conf.Au
2005 and wants to help ease their load.

*BuzZ*

We have raise the ante for the "best linux.conf.au" ever; if anything we
WILL be an extraordinarily difficult act to follow.

For what it's worth, I'm happy to second your nomination as soon as the
committee approves my membership.

DSL

--
"Theoden is a kindly old man. Denethor is another sort, proud
and subtle, a man of far greater lineage and power, though
he is not a king." [Gandalf the White to Peregrin Took]

For this week and the next, consider me as Denethor; if you
wish the Steward's kindness, then make no haste to insult him,
or the lands under his watch.

[Leon Brooks]

Post by Michael Davies
I accept Pia's nomination.

Excellent! I second, third or whatever this nomination.

Cheers; Leon

[Ryan Verner]

Post by Leon Brooks

Post by Michael Davies
I accept Pia's nomination.

After the madness of LCA? You are brave :-)

Post by Leon Brooks
Excellent! I second, third or whatever this nomination.

Likewise, Michael's proved to be a really valuable contributor in the
community.

R

[Anthony Towns]

Post by Michael Davies
Michael would like to elected to Linux Australia as an ordinary committee
member. After the experience of leading the organising of Linux.Conf.Au
2004 Michael thinks he could help Linux Australia make it to the next
level. He is passionate about open-source and free software, and wants to
make a difference.
He thinks Linux Australia should be truely representative of LUGs all
around the country, and should strive to have good working relationships
with other groups such as AUUG, the ACS, and other such professional
associations. Michael feels sorry for the organisers of Linux.Conf.Au
2005 and wants to help ease their load.

Along these lines, I'd like to nominate Michael for the position of Vice
President; from my vantage point, his work on l.c.a this year has been
incredible, and I figure if he's not so burnt out as to be fleeing the
country like some previous l.c.a head organisers have, that he'll do a
great job as VP.

My ulterior motive in this is that at the moment we've only got nominees
for the four extraordinary positions from three states (NSW, Vic, WA),
which means that either we can't even consider ordinary members from
those states, or that at least one of the remaining states (SA, Qld,
ACT) misses out on board representation entirely.

I'm not sure if Michael will accept the nomination, but given nominations
are closing today...

Cheers,
aj

(This message brought to you by the pigeon hole principle)
--
Anthony Towns <aj at humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we can.
http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/attachments/20040108/d3eabfb5/attachment.pgp

[Jeff Waugh]

<quote who="Anthony Towns">

Post by Anthony Towns
Along these lines, I'd like to nominate Michael for the position of Vice
President; from my vantage point, his work on l.c.a this year has been
incredible, and I figure if he's not so burnt out as to be fleeing the
country like some previous l.c.a head organisers have, that he'll do a
great job as VP.

I would very happily second Michael if he accepted. In fact, I would urge
him to run. :-)

- Jeff

[Michael Davies]

<quote who="Anthony Towns">

Post by Anthony Towns

Post by Michael Davies
Michael would like to elected to Linux Australia as an ordinary
committee member. After the experience of leading the organising of
Linux.Conf.Au 2004 Michael thinks he could help Linux Australia make
it to the next level. He is passionate about open-source and free
software, and wants to make a difference.
He thinks Linux Australia should be truely representative of LUGs all
around the country, and should strive to have good working
relationships with other groups such as AUUG, the ACS, and other such
professional associations. Michael feels sorry for the organisers of
Linux.Conf.Au 2005 and wants to help ease their load.

Along these lines, I'd like to nominate Michael for the position of
Vice President; from my vantage point, his work on l.c.a this year has
been incredible, and I figure if he's not so burnt out as to be fleeing
the country like some previous l.c.a head organisers have, that he'll
do a great job as VP.
My ulterior motive in this is that at the moment we've only got
nominees for the four extraordinary positions from three states (NSW,
Vic, WA), which means that either we can't even consider ordinary
members from those states, or that at least one of the remaining states
(SA, Qld, ACT) misses out on board representation entirely.
I'm not sure if Michael will accept the nomination, but given
nominations are closing today...

Hi AJ (and Australia),


Unfortunately I don't accept the nomination for Vice President. I
couldn't anyway since it's after 5:45pm :) I've only just downloaded mail
for the fist time since 9am or so this morning - I have a conference to
run, remember? :-)

Good luck to all candidates running, and thanks for the (undeserved)
confidence in me,

Michael...

[David Lloyd]

Anthony,

Post by Anthony Towns
My ulterior motive in this is that at the moment we've only got nominees
for the four extraordinary positions from three states (NSW, Vic, WA),
which means that either we can't even consider ordinary members from
those states, or that at least one of the remaining states (SA, Qld,
ACT) misses out on board representation entirely.

Maybe we should include a position for the Christmas Islands, East Timor and
the Australian Anatarctic Territory? Whilst it would be nice to have a
person on the committee from each state and territory, it's highly unlikely
to happen. Besides, I'd prefer to elect a committee of professional NSW
people than a bunch of incompetent others...

DSL

--
"Theoden is a kindly old man. Denethor is another sort, proud
and subtle, a man of far greater lineage and power, though
he is not a king." [Gandalf the White to Peregrin Took]

For this week and the next, consider me as Denethor; if you
wish the Steward's kindness, then make no haste to insult him,
or the lands under his watch.

[Michael Hockey]

On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, David Lloyd wrote:

I have addressed the issue of the rise of Linux/OSS with submissions
that I have made to Austrade and the INformation Industries Board in
QLd. QLd is perceived as being behind the 8-ball in terms of head
offices for large companies but when it comes to OSS/Linux because of
our history, we are well in the front particularly now that Asia is
going Linux/OSS in such a large way.

QLd was always improverished so our government and Unis were an early
adopter of Unix systems. Unlike southern Australia, our public service
is well and truly unix literate. ( try talking Unix in Canberra by way
of example).

So Linux was a natural extension. Anthony's email address indicates his
membership in Humbug. That is probably one of the largest home unix
groups in Asia if you trawl through the list of LUGs in the region. The
president of Humbug , Mark Suter was one of the convenors of the a
previous conference. Have a look at the Humbug website, its a very active group.
BTW Im honoured to have Mark as one of my employees.

In Brisbane, we also have the headquarters of
. RedHat internationalization centre
. Oracle development ( done largely on Linux and by preference, Im told)
. Auscert ( not really a technical organization but important for
e-commerce security issues).
. ISRC, part of faculty of Information Technology at QUT (
and Im of the opinion that it turns out the best IT graduates in
Australia. It uses Linux in its courses).

. the principal developer for Trolltech lives and works
here. The Trolltech QT toolkit is essential to the Hancom Linux
products that were adopted for the Linux desktop in Korea. Its
also going to be used in the desktop being developed by China,
Japan and S Korea.

. APNIC is in Brisbane
. the developers for the first opensource SSL toolkit are in Brisbane.
( those developers are why RSA has its research centre here).

. the most active cell of SAGE-AU is in Brisbane ( another award for
2003).

I dont think that we have a problem with professionalism. I
think that the rest of Australia is playing catch-up with us
in the Linux area. But perhaps that a parochial view :).

Mike


lloy00>
lloy00> Anthony,
lloy00>
lloy00> > My ulterior motive in this is that at the moment we've only got nominees
lloy00> > for the four extraordinary positions from three states (NSW, Vic, WA),
lloy00> > which means that either we can't even consider ordinary members from
lloy00> > those states, or that at least one of the remaining states (SA, Qld,
lloy00> > ACT) misses out on board representation entirely.
lloy00>
lloy00> Maybe we should include a position for the Christmas Islands, East Timor and
lloy00> the Australian Anatarctic Territory? Whilst it would be nice to have a
lloy00> person on the committee from each state and territory, it's highly unlikely
lloy00> to happen. Besides, I'd prefer to elect a committee of professional NSW
lloy00> people than a bunch of incompetent others...
lloy00>
lloy00> DSL
lloy00>
lloy00> --
lloy00> "Theoden is a kindly old man. Denethor is another sort, proud
lloy00> and subtle, a man of far greater lineage and power, though
lloy00> he is not a king." [Gandalf the White to Peregrin Took]
lloy00>
lloy00> For this week and the next, consider me as Denethor; if you
lloy00> wish the Steward's kindness, then make no haste to insult him,
lloy00> or the lands under his watch.
lloy00> _______________________________________________
lloy00> linux-aus mailing list
lloy00> linux-aus at lists.linux.org.au
lloy00> http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/linux-aus
lloy00>

Michael Hockey Miju Systems http://www.miju.com.au/
Phone: [phone] PO Box 176, Corinda Q 4075, Australia
Email: michael.hockey at miju.com.au ABN 48 065 548 496
Fax: [phone]

[David Lloyd]

Michael,

Post by Michael Hockey
I dont think that we have a problem with professionalism. I
think that the rest of Australia is playing catch-up with us
in the Linux area. But perhaps that a parochial view :).

You've misunderstood me. What I was trying to say is that I don't see not
having a representative from every state on the committee as a bad thing. I
was indicating that it's better to have competent people and I wasn't
insinuating anything else.

:-)

DSL

--
"Theoden is a kindly old man. Denethor is another sort, proud
and subtle, a man of far greater lineage and power, though
he is not a king." [Gandalf the White to Peregrin Took]

For this week and the next, consider me as Denethor; if you
wish the Steward's kindness, then make no haste to insult him,
or the lands under his watch.

[Anthony Towns]

Post by David Lloyd

Post by Anthony Towns
My ulterior motive in this is that at the moment we've only got nominees
for the four extraordinary positions from three states (NSW, Vic, WA),
which means that either we can't even consider ordinary members from
those states, or that at least one of the remaining states (SA, Qld,
ACT) misses out on board representation entirely.

Maybe we should include a position for the Christmas Islands, East Timor and
the Australian Anatarctic Territory?

Why? We don't have any nominees from any of those, and one of them isn't
even part of Australia. Likewise, we don't have any nominees from Tasmania
or NT.

Post by David Lloyd
Whilst it would be nice to have a
person on the committee from each state and territory,

It'd be more than merely "nice". It's very difficult to participate in a
community if you can't have face-to-face chats with the decision makers.
That's why we have things like linux.conf.au and Debian conferences and
heck, even LUGs in the first place -- for some things being able to sit
down with someone and talk is much more efficient than trying to use irc,
email or the phone. At the moment, the only people who have any chance
of doing that are the people in Perth, Melbourne, Sydney, and Canberra.
For example, it was recently announced that the location for l.c.a 2005
had been decided. That's something I've an interest in, and that I've
been involved in helping with in the past, and in the past it's usually
decided at the preceeding conference. This time around, I didn't have
any idea anything was going on, let alone any opportunity to have any
input or offer any assistance.

That doesn't mean the decision that was made was bad, but it does indicate
LA's not making use of all the resources it's got available to it, and
that's worth examining.

As another perspective, LA's had a minor controversy over publishing its
minutes over the past six months. For those of us who don't have easy
access to a board member, that means we've got no idea what LA's been
doing since about June. Obviously _something's_ happened -- Pia's been
blogging from Geneva or something for some reason that seems LA related.
Now, no disrespect to the ctte intended -- that sort of thing happens,
but while the minutes problem has probably been fixed now, I'd personally
expect similar blockages in the communication flow in future. Without
having a local board member and the informal channels that implies,
that means entire states miss out on any idea what's going on with
Linux Australia.

Post by David Lloyd
it's highly unlikely to happen.

Well, that depends. Given the nominations we've had, to give as many
states a rep as possible, that'd mean we need an officer from Sydney,
Melbourne and Perth; and ordinary members from each of Adelaide, Brisbane
and Canberra. Electing, say, Anand or Jason King as an ordinary member
might be beneficial, but it'd come at the cost of an entire state's
involvement in LA.

There are (by my calculations) 22 different combinations of
state/officer combinations (like President/NSW, VP/NSW, Secretary/Vic,
Treasurer/WA). Half of them have a rep from each state, the rest cost
either one or two states representation in LA.

Post by David Lloyd
Besides, I'd prefer to elect a committee of professional NSW
people than a bunch of incompetent others...

I don't think any of the nominees are incompetent, so that doesn't sound
like a plausible alternative.

But if you did have seven Sydney-siders on the board, how do you think
you, in Adelaide, would get involved? Presumably Adelaide wasn't the
winner of the 2005 l.c.a, so you won't be doing very much related to that.
If you're lucky, there might be an LA rep at one of your LUG meetings
in the year for you to chat to, if you're not (like Brisbane wasn't),
there won't be. If you're like me, you might try emailing one of the exec
members you met at l.c.a, then eventually lose interest because you can't
really keep up with what's happening, and nothing's happening locally.

For example, here's my summary of what LA's been doing over the past year.

* Supported linux.conf.au
* Supported linmagau
* Sent Pia off to foreign parts for some reason
* Started a project for giving small amounts of money to some
free software projects that didn't really get anywhere
* Considered accepting donations on behalf of some free software
projects but didn't get anywhere at all
* Posted links to a bunch of news articles on the mailing list
* Had some friendly chats with AUUG, establishing a good working
relationship

Personally I expect people who've had a chat with Leon or Pia about
Linux Australia anytime in the past few months could give a much better
summary than that. Unfortunately, if you're not in Sydney or Perth,
you don't get much chance to do that.

In summary: we've got a choice, we can either have local involvement in
Linux Australia in six Australian capital cities, or not.

Personally, I think as a first step we should increase the number of
ordinary ctte members to perhaps six or seven, so we don't have to make
choices like "drop Anand from the committee, or don't have any involvement
from one of ACT/South Australia/Queensland for a year".

It's easy to say "we don't want quotas!" and it makes sense in most cases,
but I don't think Linux Australia is one of them.

Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj at humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we can.
http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/attachments/20040108/a748b263/attachment.pgp

[David Lloyd]

Anthony,

Post by Anthony Towns

Post by David Lloyd
Whilst it would be nice to have a
person on the committee from each state and territory,

It'd be more than merely "nice". It's very difficult to participate in a
community if you can't have face-to-face chats with the decision makers.

For some, yes. But I am a veteran of making sure everyone knows what I
think...

Post by Anthony Towns
Well, that depends. Given the nominations we've had, to give as many
states a rep as possible, that'd mean we need an officer from Sydney,
Melbourne and Perth; and ordinary members from each of Adelaide, Brisbane
and Canberra. Electing, say, Anand or Jason King as an ordinary member
might be beneficial, but it'd come at the cost of an entire state's
involvement in LA.

If noone from SA gets elected to Linux Australia, this won't mean that
Michael or I (to take two examples - and I use Michael as an example because
I know that I can speak for him in this) will suddenly allow SA to not be
involved in LA. That is just silly; if you need proof we've both just shown
incredible dedication to LCA 2004, him more so [don't let him convince you
otherwise] and we're not about to go "Oh, so SA has not LA reps so we're
going to sulk.".

Post by Anthony Towns
But if you did have seven Sydney-siders on the board, how do you think
you, in Adelaide, would get involved? Presumably Adelaide wasn't the
winner of the 2005 l.c.a, so you won't be doing very much related to that.
If you're lucky, there might be an LA rep at one of your LUG meetings
in the year for you to chat to, if you're not (like Brisbane wasn't),
there won't be. If you're like me, you might try emailing one of the exec
members you met at l.c.a, then eventually lose interest because you can't
really keep up with what's happening, and nothing's happening locally.
For example, here's my summary of what LA's been doing over the past year.
* Supported linux.conf.au
* Supported linmagau
* Sent Pia off to foreign parts for some reason
* Started a project for giving small amounts of money to some
free software projects that didn't really get anywhere
* Considered accepting donations on behalf of some free software
projects but didn't get anywhere at all
* Posted links to a bunch of news articles on the mailing list
* Had some friendly chats with AUUG, establishing a good working
relationship
Personally I expect people who've had a chat with Leon or Pia about
Linux Australia anytime in the past few months could give a much better
summary than that. Unfortunately, if you're not in Sydney or Perth,
you don't get much chance to do that.

To be horridly fair, that's as much a reflection on your investigative
skills as well. And what input have you given to any of them...

Post by Anthony Towns
In summary: we've got a choice, we can either have local involvement in
Linux Australia in six Australian capital cities, or not.

AHEM

I understand what you are saying but that example is a tad silly in my
opinion.

Post by Anthony Towns
Personally, I think as a first step we should increase the number of
ordinary ctte members to perhaps six or seven, so we don't have to make
choices like "drop Anand from the committee, or don't have any involvement
from one of ACT/South Australia/Queensland for a year".

A good suggestion :-)

DSL

--
"Theoden is a kindly old man. Denethor is another sort, proud
and subtle, a man of far greater lineage and power, though
he is not a king." [Gandalf the White to Peregrin Took]

For this week and the next, consider me as Denethor; if you
wish the Steward's kindness, then make no haste to insult him,
or the lands under his watch.

[Anthony Towns]

Post by David Lloyd
If noone from SA gets elected to Linux Australia, this won't mean that
Michael or I (to take two examples - and I use Michael as an example because
I know that I can speak for him in this) will suddenly allow SA to not be
involved in LA.

Mmm. I haven't ignored LA for the past year either. Can't say the same
for all that many others in Qld though.

Post by David Lloyd
That is just silly; if you need proof we've both just shown
incredible dedication to LCA 2004, him more so [don't let him convince you
otherwise] and we're not about to go "Oh, so SA has not LA reps so we're
going to sulk.".

Of course you're not. But without any actually communication with LA,
there's not much you're going to actually be able to do.

Post by David Lloyd

Post by Anthony Towns
For example, here's my summary of what LA's been doing over the past year.
* Supported linux.conf.au
* Supported linmagau
* Sent Pia off to foreign parts for some reason
* Started a project for giving small amounts of money to some
free software projects that didn't really get anywhere
* Considered accepting donations on behalf of some free software
projects but didn't get anywhere at all
* Posted links to a bunch of news articles on the mailing list
* Had some friendly chats with AUUG, establishing a good working
relationship
Personally I expect people who've had a chat with Leon or Pia about
Linux Australia anytime in the past few months could give a much better
summary than that. Unfortunately, if you're not in Sydney or Perth,
you don't get much chance to do that.

To be horridly fair, that's as much a reflection on your investigative
skills as well. And what input have you given to any of them...

It's hard to give input for things you only find out about once they're
well and truly over. I seem to have an email in my archives to Pia
from Feb suggesting accepting donations on behalf of other projects,
and suggesting scholarships for Honours-level projects. I got a reply
from Pia on the 4th, and it seems to have been discussed in the meeting
of the 5th; though I didn't hear anything more about it.

Anyway, as far as investigative skills go, I'd be interested in seeing
someone with more average abilities come up with URLs that give better
explanations.

Post by David Lloyd

Post by Anthony Towns
In summary: we've got a choice, we can either have local involvement in
Linux Australia in six Australian capital cities, or not.

AHEM
I understand what you are saying but that example is a tad silly in my
opinion.

*shrug* How much involvement and input in Linux Australia has there
been from Queensland this year. How about WA? Do you really think the
difference is best explained by claiming everyone in Queensland is
uninterested, incompetent or lazy?

Post by David Lloyd

Post by Anthony Towns
Personally, I think as a first step we should increase the number of
ordinary ctte members to perhaps six or seven, so we don't have to make
choices like "drop Anand from the committee, or don't have any involvement
from one of ACT/South Australia/Queensland for a year".

A good suggestion :-)

But not one that I think's justified unless havine a rep from each state
on the LA ctte is considered worthwhile.

Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj at humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we can.
http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/attachments/20040108/45843959/attachment.pgp

[David Lloyd]

Anthony,

Post by Anthony Towns
Mmm. I haven't ignored LA for the past year either. Can't say the same
for all that many others in Qld though.

Ah ell.

Post by Anthony Towns

Post by David Lloyd
That is just silly; if you need proof we've both just shown
incredible dedication to LCA 2004, him more so [don't let him convince
you otherwise] and we're not about to go "Oh, so SA has not LA reps so
we're going to sulk.".

Of course you're not. But without any actually communication with LA,
there's not much you're going to actually be able to do.

However, I happen to:

* be the most talkative person on LinuxSA
* run the CSDN-SA
* run OSBN-SA
* am heavily involved in ITShare SA Inc (i.e. Computerbank)
* attend most SA auug meetings

...whilst I have my differences with my fellow South Australians, I do know
what they think for the most part and I put forward their points of view
tinted by my own perspecitve and character.

Post by Anthony Towns
It's hard to give input for things you only find out about once they're
well and truly over. I seem to have an email in my archives to Pia
from Feb suggesting accepting donations on behalf of other projects,
and suggesting scholarships for Honours-level projects. I got a reply
from Pia on the 4th, and it seems to have been discussed in the meeting
of the 5th; though I didn't hear anything more about it.

Yes, this may be so. However I wanted them to sponsor OSBN-SA and I prodded
them every month and sometimes every week until I got the answser.
Persistence :-)

Post by Anthony Towns
Anyway, as far as investigative skills go, I'd be interested in seeing
someone with more average abilities come up with URLs that give better
explanations.

Some of the explanations are unwritten...

Post by Anthony Towns

Post by David Lloyd
I understand what you are saying but that example is a tad silly in my
opinion.

*shrug* How much involvement and input in Linux Australia has there
been from Queensland this year. How about WA? Do you really think the
difference is best explained by claiming everyone in Queensland is
uninterested, incompetent or lazy?

No, I don't claim it is "best" explained by that. But it's not "best"
explained by your supposition either...

Post by Anthony Towns

Post by David Lloyd

Post by Anthony Towns
Personally, I think as a first step we should increase the number of
ordinary ctte members to perhaps six or seven, so we don't have to
make choices like "drop Anand from the committee, or don't have any
involvement from one of ACT/South Australia/Queensland for a year".

A good suggestion :-)

But not one that I think's justified unless havine a rep from each state
on the LA ctte is considered worthwhile.

It most likely is...but I don't think it's necessarily necessary...

:-)

DSL
--
"Theoden is a kindly old man. Denethor is another sort, proud
and subtle, a man of far greater lineage and power, though
he is not a king." [Gandalf the White to Peregrin Took]

For this week and the next, consider me as Denethor; if you
wish the Steward's kindness, then make no haste to insult him,
or the lands under his watch.

[Jeff Waugh]

<quote who="Anthony Towns">

Post by Anthony Towns

Post by David Lloyd
That is just silly; if you need proof we've both just shown
incredible dedication to LCA 2004, him more so [don't let him convince you
otherwise] and we're not about to go "Oh, so SA has not LA reps so we're
going to sulk.".

Of course you're not. But without any actually communication with LA,
there's not much you're going to actually be able to do.

That's what this list is for! I think you're making the mistake of thinking
that the LA committee *is* LA. They are not. They are people we elect as
trusted persons to administrate the boring organisational aspects of it and
drive new initiatives and do what we ask. *WE* are all LA.

Post by Anthony Towns

Post by David Lloyd
To be horridly fair, that's as much a reflection on your investigative
skills as well. And what input have you given to any of them...

It's hard to give input for things you only find out about once they're
well and truly over. I seem to have an email in my archives to Pia from
Feb suggesting accepting donations on behalf of other projects, and
suggesting scholarships for Honours-level projects. I got a reply from Pia
on the 4th, and it seems to have been discussed in the meeting of the 5th;
though I didn't hear anything more about it.

A number of people have expressed concern over the transparency of the
committee. I've already made myself unpopular with Andrew Cowie because I
gave (what I thought was) constructive criticism on the minutes, and showed
that I was not pleased with the visibility to the community (ie. this list).

While the committee has the chief responsibility for these things, we do
too, which is why I am happy to bug them publically about these things. I
would have suggested that you mail the list publically about this issue,
sometimes public 'shaming' works wonders, although it should be used with
care and politeness. The committee certainly have had a lot on their plate,
attempting to unscrew the mistakes of the past and turn the organisation
into something active and credible, etc.

Post by Anthony Towns
*shrug* How much involvement and input in Linux Australia has there been
from Queensland this year. How about WA? Do you really think the
difference is best explained by claiming everyone in Queensland is
uninterested, incompetent or lazy?

Uninterested? Yes. Busy? Yes. And that's fine, LA has been rocking along
without input from QLD this year. Does that negatively affect QLD? I don't
think so. What would 'more input' do for QLD in concrete terms? (Yes, much
of the work this year has been getting LA back to square one, so there was
not a huge amount of room for way-cool-active-let's-all-do-it kinds of
things that would really affect the states directly.)

- Jeff

[Anthony Towns]

Post by Jeff Waugh

Post by Anthony Towns
Of course you're not. But without any actually communication with LA,
there's not much you're going to actually be able to do.

That's what this list is for! I think you're making the mistake of thinking
that the LA committee *is* LA. They are not.

Well, some of the membership debacles might refute that, technically.

The issue is that the LA ctte is the only group that can make decisions --
so if you want to do more than just talk, you need access to that group.
Now sure, there's _some_ access to the ctte; like I said, I passed on some
ideas to Pia, and some of them went somewhere. That's great and useful.

But I can't, eg, have a quiet chat about some concerns I have that are
related to Linux Australia that I don't want to put down in an email, and
there's no one I regularly chat to at a LUG that reminds me "hey, LA's
doing useful stuff, I should keep involved; hey whatever happened about
that suggestion I made last month?"

Post by Jeff Waugh
They are people we elect as
trusted persons to administrate the boring organisational aspects of it and
drive new initiatives and do what we ask. *WE* are all LA.

Uh, doesn't that mean that their job description is to act as *OUR*
representatives? I thought you didn't think that was the case?

If they're acting purely as our representatives, having them split
on a state basis makes sense, for consistency, accessibility and
accountability. But I don't really think that's what LA is actually
about.

If they're not acting as representatives, then they're doing things off
their own bat -- that is, the board's meant to be coming up with useful
ideas and implementing them themselves. I think that's LA's role, and
I think the things they should be doing is trying to promote community
projects within Australia (whether that be LUGs, or business communities,
or government communities, or some combination or subset), supporting
them, getting them to repeat and spread, and keeping communication
between all the Australian communities as open and effective as possible.

Post by Jeff Waugh
A number of people have expressed concern over the transparency of the
committee.

I'd like to note that I'm not one of them; committees are hard, because
there's always plenty of conflicting things you have to worry about. The
reason I'm in favour of local contact is that it provides a convenient
informal channel that doesn't have the same concerns as many of the
more formal channels (like web pages, minutes, newsletters/reports) --
it doesn't matter as much if you make a mistake, you can limit who's
involved in the conversation, and whatever else.

Post by Jeff Waugh

Post by Anthony Towns
*shrug* How much involvement and input in Linux Australia has there been
from Queensland this year. How about WA? Do you really think the
difference is best explained by claiming everyone in Queensland is
uninterested, incompetent or lazy?

Uninterested? Yes. Busy? Yes.

Well, I know some Qlders were nominated to the board at the AGM. I don't
see any particular reason to expect that they'd have been particularly
less interested or involved than Leon has been. And I don't really see how
they'd be more busy than people in WA when they're less involved in LA.

Post by Jeff Waugh
And that's fine, LA has been rocking along
without input from QLD this year. Does that negatively affect QLD? I don't
think so. What would 'more input' do for QLD in concrete terms?

It'd mean at least some people in Qld would know what LA's been up to.
It'd mean people in Qld would have someone they could talk to to see
what LA can do for them, or what they can do for LA. I'm inclined to
think it'd demonstrate that Qld isn't doing as good a job supporting
the professional Linux community as other states, and shame us (with
examples!) into doing better, but I might be wrong.

Post by Jeff Waugh
(Yes, much
of the work this year has been getting LA back to square one, so there was
not a huge amount of room for way-cool-active-let's-all-do-it kinds of
things that would really affect the states directly.)

There's not much that the LA ctte can do directly ever -- it's too small
to even host l.c.a on its own -- and when you talk of the "LA community"
doing things, that really ends up being the LUGs, or some other existing
community that exists completely independently of LA, afaics.

Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj at humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we can.
http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/attachments/20040109/ed03b0f2/attachment.pgp

[Jeff Waugh]

<quote who="Anthony Towns">

Post by Anthony Towns
There's not much that the LA ctte can do directly ever -- it's too small
to even host l.c.a on its own -- and when you talk of the "LA community"
doing things, that really ends up being the LUGs, or some other existing
community that exists completely independently of LA, afaics.

EXACTLY!!! :-) However, it is up to LA and the LUGs to make sure they work
together. That is the ideal, and some have done better than others.

- Jeff

[Andrew Cowie]

LA ... are people we elect as trusted persons to administrate the
boring organisational aspects of it and drive new initiatives ...
*WE* are all LA.

Thank bog someone finally said that.

How many of you have *actually* sat on a Board of Directors? I mean a
real one? Or, are corporate lawyers, or, have business degrees?

Some, but not too many.

If you're interested, here follows a brief analysis of what a Board
(Managing Committee in LA's Constitution's parlance) does, what is
different about elected non-profit Boards, and where LA fits into all
this.

--

In a larger commercial organization, the Board's job is a few things:

* To be responsible for the fiduciary dealings of the organization (ie,
that people aren't embezzling, that the organization is paying its
bills, completing its reports, and generally not pulling an Enron)

* To hire (and fire) the CEO [who in turn hires and fires the rest of
the company]

* To set the strategic direction of the organization, setting ends to be
achieved and limitations on the means which can be used to reach those
ends.

* To be liable for the company's actions.

The not-for-profit sector is a bit different, but not much. There seem
to be two sorts: first, organizations whose purpose is to serve their
(presumably) large memberships, and secondly, organizations which carry
out some [business or otherwise] activity. Educational organizations of
most stripes (from universities down to summer camps) fall into the
second group. Either way, the *Board*'s responsibility is the stuff
above.

Commercial companies' Boards are appointed by their owners (usually in
private firms that's the owners appointing themselves ; obviously
publicly traded companies are different, but even then, there is
continuity because the Board recommends the slate for the following
year), and Boards of organizations such as educational foundations are
usually also self-appointed - that is, they seek out new members
themselves, and are responsible for seeing to self renewal as a part of
ensuring continuance of the organization. [In accordance with their own
Constitutions / By-Laws, often which provide something like "max of
three consecutive three year terms, after which you have to take a
year's break from the Board"; in practice the 9 years mark is a good
time to gracefully move on]

So this is the first area where Linux Australia is different (as are
many "Association" type organizations). Its Board is elected by its
Membership.

The funny thing is that without a large membership, our "job" would be
still be seeing that the conference gets run.

--

Usually, an organization has a secretariat to support the activities of
the Board. For example, the position of Treasurer is a Member of the
Board whose job it is to oversee the finances of the organization. On
the other hand, the Controller (CFO in modern parlance)'s job is to
actually see to the direction and execution of the various financial
functions.

LA's Committee is different. We're a small group, and in addition to all
the responsibility stuff above, LA seems to expect it's Committee to do
all the work.

[Thank the Community that each year there are teams of dedicated people
who volunteer to step up and actually *run* the annual Conference that
such an enormous task can be delegated to. But even then:]

As a case in point, I note that Anand works like a dog at the
"Treasurer" role. Really, he's slaving away being the organizations
Controller (not to mention bookkeeper, accounts payable, and accounts
receivable dude, and the guy sending all the @#%! paperwork into ATO). I
also note that Anand hasn't had much sleep ... in a long time. It's a
*big* job.

As I was saying, most organizations have a secretariat (of at least one!
Executive Director (=CEO), or Business Manager, or Executive Assistant,
or what have you) supporting the Board - people who are paid to get the
niggly stuff done, follow up tasks, do research, you name it (or, in the
case of Executive Director / Managing Director / CEO, to actually get on
with the running of the organization).

Linux Australia's Committee is comprised of unpaid volunteers. There's
no secretariat. And there's finite energy to go around.

That's the second way that Linux Australia is different that a more
conventional organization.

[I note that our regional LUGs seem to operate the same way - and that
their Committee Members express frustration that they are expected to do
everything while their community just sits back and enjoys the ride. All
seems to fall out of the fact that we're volunteer organizations, as
opposed to more ones conventionally staffed (with paid employees)]

--

But regardless of the two factors described above that differentiate an
association like ours from a more conventional incorporate entity, the
fact remains that the Board's primary duty is governance.

Taking care of the responsibility stuff takes enormous amounts of time.
It's not glamorous, it's not even terribly interesting. But it *is*
necessary.

If we were, God forbid, ever to be hit with a court challenge on a
liability issue, it would be as frightening and serious as it would be
for any organization. I am, however, convinced, that our governance has
been sound, and that we would stand tall in any such situation.

And that's the best anyone can do.

--

And now, only now, at the end, do I raise the issue of communication and
accountability that this whole thread has been about.

I agree that we can do a better job communicating with our Membership.
I'm sure next year's Committee will make marked improvements - and I
certainly hope that in a year's time far fewer feel disenfranchised than
now [1].

But what we hand to next year's Committee will be an organization that
exists, at last, in a lawful and compliant manner. It will be an
organization that is on sound financial footing, and be one with a
workable Constitution. This year's conference is in good hands, with all
the banking and insurance support it required, and things are well in
hand to ensure that there will be an excellent conference for the
community next year.

And for all that, I'm pretty pleased. I hope you are too.

[Otherwise "Shoot straight, you bastards!" :)]

AfC


P.S. [To learn more about this issue, ASIC has an excellent pamphlet
outlining Directors' responsibilities and liabilities. It actually makes
a pretty frightening read if you don't realize what you're getting
into]:
http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/ASIC_INFOCO.NSF/print/Your+company+and+the+law?opendocument



[1] I personally believe that "some feeling disenfranchised" is an
inherent weakness in any system where elections are involved.

No, I'm not a communist - but I am a veteran. Soldiers don't get the job
done by voting.

Despite my personal distaste for Bret Busby's being so obstinate, it's
is certainly clear that he's not happy. I don't consider it my mission
in life (or as a LA Committee member) to make him or anyone else happy,
but I am content if I believe that, in any particular case, we made the
best decision we could under the circumstances, with the good of the
organization in mind.

[Stewart Smith]

Post by Anthony Towns
*shrug* How much involvement and input in Linux Australia has there
been from Queensland this year. How about WA? Do you really think the
difference is best explained by claiming everyone in Queensland is
uninterested, incompetent or lazy?

I tend to think of it as a Work-In-Progress - we're still finding our
feet properly and although there's been a huge increase in energy this
year, not everything has gone perfectly. Given another year or two,
things will be much better.

Hopefully increasing the qld input and involvement,
--
Stewart Smith (stewart at linux.org.au)
Vice President, Linux Australia

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/attachments/20040108/177a6936/attachment.pgp

[Jeff Waugh]

<quote who="Anthony Towns">

Post by Anthony Towns
That doesn't mean the decision that was made was bad, but it does indicate
LA's not making use of all the resources it's got available to it, and
that's worth examining.

"all" of the resources or the "best" resources? I too would prefer to have a
totally kickarse committee, regardless where they're from, than have what
may be a lame committee made up of people who don't really care, but are
there because of their locality. Consider this: You couldn't convince your
other QLD friends to run, so you had to. What if you didn't have time? (And
it could be said that you don't already.) Would we lose a committee member?
Would we have a committee member there who doesn't care?

I want *good* people on the committee, not people who live in certain
places.

Post by Anthony Towns
As another perspective, LA's had a minor controversy over publishing its
minutes over the past six months. For those of us who don't have easy
access to a board member, that means we've got no idea what LA's been
doing since about June. Obviously _something's_ happened -- Pia's been
blogging from Geneva or something for some reason that seems LA related.
Now, no disrespect to the ctte intended -- that sort of thing happens, but
while the minutes problem has probably been fixed now, I'd personally
expect similar blockages in the communication flow in future. Without
having a local board member and the informal channels that implies, that
means entire states miss out on any idea what's going on with Linux
Australia.

While I am quite frustrated with the minutes issue, I don't see how having a
member of the committee in your state would seriously help. It sounds like a
good argument, but it's not entirely logical.

Post by Anthony Towns
In summary: we've got a choice, we can either have local involvement in
Linux Australia in six Australian capital cities, or not.

Involvement is community-centric, not locality-centric. If you want to get
involved, whereever you are, you can. You can be involved in LA through your
LUG and the lug@ list, you can work with LA to do things locally without
being on the committee (the committee does the drudge work to help you, and
that's what they should be about), you can help on the website, help with
national organisation, so on and so on... All of this, without being on the
committee.

Corollary: I am involved in Debian, and I am not a Debian Developer, nor
have a login on a Debian machine, nor have any official leadership post in
the Debian project. My contribution, commitment, interest and involvement is
totally up to me and my energy to do something about it, and it doesn't
matter where Martin lives. *That* is how a community, and I would hope LA,
works.

Post by Anthony Towns
Personally, I think as a first step we should increase the number of
ordinary ctte members to perhaps six or seven, so we don't have to make
choices like "drop Anand from the committee, or don't have any involvement
from one of ACT/South Australia/Queensland for a year".

Well, this is precisely a choice that I will be making. I (and I believe,
LA) will benefit far more from a fresh committee member from another state
than I (and I believe, LA) will from Anand continuing on in the committee.
And as a voting member, that is my prerogative. I can make that choice. If I
were unable to make that choice, I'd be pretty annoyed.

- Jeff

[Anthony Towns]

Post by Jeff Waugh
<quote who="Anthony Towns">

Post by Anthony Towns
That doesn't mean the decision that was made was bad, but it does indicate
LA's not making use of all the resources it's got available to it, and
that's worth examining.

"all" of the resources or the "best" resources?

If you're going to buy a CD, do you only use the $50 notes you have,
or do you use the $20 notes too? Presumably you take into account all
the money you've got access to.

Likewise for LA -- you want to make use of everyone who's useful and
willing to contribute. But the only people you _can_ make use of are
the people who have some idea what's going on, and some way of getting
their voice heard.

To be specific: I had no way of helping with the l.c.a '05 selection
because I didn't know about it all; and I've had no way of helping with
the donations or reformulating the scholarships, because I've had no
idea what's been going on nor anyone to talk to about it. Or take the
Digital Agenda Review stuff -- I did my best to follow that myself, and
to prepare useful summaries and so forth, trying to help organise a LA
response, and get one reply from Pia a week after trying to get some LA
involvement saying "we'll discuss it this week", then no further response,
or involvement from anyone else on the committee.

Post by Jeff Waugh
I too would prefer to have a
totally kickarse committee, regardless where they're from, than have what
may be a lame committee made up of people who don't really care, but are
there because of their locality. Consider this: You couldn't convince your
other QLD friends to run, so you had to.

The main reason for this is that no one in Qld thinks LA particularly
matters. It's been a Sydney-obsessed thing forever, and whenever we try
to broaden its horizons, we get told we're not kickarse enough.

I think it's indicative that the only people to nominate themselves for
the officer slots are from states that had exec members this year. I
think it's also interesting that of the newbies, four applied for any
of the four officer slots, while ten (with an overlap of three) applied
for the three ordinary positions.

Post by Jeff Waugh
I want *good* people on the committee, not people who live in certain
places.

Why, exactly? What do you want Linux Australia to achieve? Do you think
it should just be a forum and an expense account that whichever seven
people get elected use to promote their pet projects for a year?

Personally, I don't think LA should be creating and leading, so much
as supporting and encouraging -- ie, finding people doing good things
already, and either helping other people repeat their success, or helping
them do the same thing bigger and better. I think that's the lesson
from l.c.a, and I don't think we can do it well, without LA having
representation in each state.

Post by Jeff Waugh
While I am quite frustrated with the minutes issue, I don't see how having a
member of the committee in your state would seriously help.

Having someone you can _talk to_ is what helps. You, personally, don't
have a problem with the lack of minutes, because you can just ask Pia
what happened. Other people in SLUG can do the same, and other people
in Sydney can visit a SLUG meeting if they feel the need. It's not so
plausible to do that if you live in Brisbane.

Post by Jeff Waugh

Post by Anthony Towns
In summary: we've got a choice, we can either have local involvement in
Linux Australia in six Australian capital cities, or not.

Involvement is community-centric, not locality-centric.

Communities are locality-centric. That's what LUGs are. More to the point,
stuff that isn't locality centric doesn't need LA, LA's needed for the
stuff that's specific to one particular locale - Australia.

Post by Jeff Waugh
If you want to get involved, whereever you are, you can.

My experience differs, as above.

With a local LA ctte member, if I'd thought the Digital Agenda stuff
was important enough, I could've pestered them easily enough in person,
and made sure I got an immediate response, found out where the LA
board actually stood (and how busy it was with complicated things it
couldn't talk about), and worked out exactly what could be done. But
with just email contact with people I've only met once or twice, that's
not possible.

Post by Jeff Waugh
Corollary: I am involved in Debian, and I am not a Debian Developer, nor
have a login on a Debian machine, nor have any official leadership post in
the Debian project. My contribution, commitment, interest and involvement is
totally up to me and my energy to do something about it, and it doesn't
matter where Martin lives. *That* is how a community, and I would hope LA,
works.

The reason Debian works so well for you is that there's very little
activity that *you* can't take part in. You can subscribe to the lists,
lurk on irc, look at the source and the changelogs, poke through CVS,
etc [0]. With Linux Australia, that's not the case: most of the activity is
locale based, whether it be linux.conf.au, or a LUG meeting, or chatting
with some government types, or giving a talk at a conference in Geneva,
or a teleconference or face-to-face board meeting.

Given Debian can focus on technical issues, and Linux Australia is
substantially interested in more political issues, I don't really think
that LA can hope to match Debian in the "doesn't matter where you are"
game.

Post by Jeff Waugh

Post by Anthony Towns
Personally, I think as a first step we should increase the number of
ordinary ctte members to perhaps six or seven, so we don't have to make
choices like "drop Anand from the committee, or don't have any involvement
from one of ACT/South Australia/Queensland for a year".

Well, this is precisely a choice that I will be making. I (and I believe,
LA) will benefit far more from a fresh committee member from another state
than I (and I believe, LA) will from Anand continuing on in the committee.
And as a voting member, that is my prerogative. I can make that choice. If I
were unable to make that choice, I'd be pretty annoyed.

That's understandable. Personally, I'm annoyed that I can't choose "Keep
Anand on the committee, and have representation for every state possible."

(For reference, I don't really like quotas, and I'm inclined to think
with a few extra slots up for election this wouldn't be a problem. I'm
also inclined to think that this doesn't need a permanent solution
with any great urgency. But on the other hand, I think this issue --
local representation being useful above and beyond just diversity and
new blood -- is worth a bit more serious consideration, and some more
persuasive support, than I think it's been given so far.)

Cheers,
aj

[0] And most of the problems you'll have, as a sponsored non-maintainer,
or as a registered developer, are likely to be the things where that's
not the case -- like making uploads, or trying to deal with things
where you don't have timely access to all the applicable information.
Try fixing the delays in the BTS when they're caused by exim, and
you can't run mailq, eg. Or uploading a timely fix to one of your
packages when you can't find a sponsor.
--
Anthony Towns <aj at humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we can.
http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/attachments/20040108/3455f470/attachment.pgp

[Jeff Waugh]

<quote who="Anthony Towns">

Post by Anthony Towns
To be specific: I had no way of helping with the l.c.a '05 selection
because I didn't know about it all;

This is a specific case, and one that I too am not happy about (I just
hadn't expressed that publically yet). Here's why: In previous years, the
tradition was to select the location *at* the conference, so everyone could
sit down and have a good chat about it, and nut it out together. That didn't
happen this year. Hugh sent a mail to the list saying a location had been
chosen, but didn't even state who. I have the sneaking suspicion it's
Canberra.

I am unhappy with this on two counts. First, it was an unannounced break
with tradition. I thought that tradition was very important, so I probably
would have brought up my disagreement with it were the change proposed. But,
if the reasons behind it were good, I probably would have supported it. As
it stands, a choice was made, no one even knows who yet, and ho one had the
opportunity to express concern about the change in tradition before it was
made.

Note: I am lame because I didn't respond to this as soon as it happened. I
should have done that.

Post by Anthony Towns
and I've had no way of helping with the donations or reformulating the
scholarships, because I've had no idea what's been going on nor anyone to
talk to about it.

*snip other examples*

You do. They are the committee. They answer to the community. They are known
to the community. You have IRC, this list, people who live near them, the
committee mailing list, and you can easily get their phone numbers too. When
you say "no one to talk to" it really means that you didn't use the possible
methods of following these things up to your best advantage.

Post by Anthony Towns

I too would prefer to have a totally kickarse committee, regardless
where they're from, than have what may be a lame committee made up of
people who don't really care, but are there because of their locality.
Consider this: You couldn't convince your other QLD friends to run, so
you had to.

The main reason for this is that no one in Qld thinks LA particularly
matters. It's been a Sydney-obsessed thing forever, and whenever we try to
broaden its horizons, we get told we're not kickarse enough.

"not kickarse enough"? Seriously, if you guys want to get elected, you have
to get involved. No one elects an unknown Debian Project Leader or President
of SLUG. It just doesn't happen. Make an impact. It *doesn't matter* where
you are from.

Post by Anthony Towns
I think it's indicative that the only people to nominate themselves for
the officer slots are from states that had exec members this year. I think
it's also interesting that of the newbies, four applied for any of the
four officer slots, while ten (with an overlap of three) applied for the
three ordinary positions.

I don't think that has any relation to locality.

Post by Anthony Towns

I want *good* people on the committee, not people who live in certain
places.

Why, exactly? What do you want Linux Australia to achieve? Do you think it
should just be a forum and an expense account that whichever seven people
get elected use to promote their pet projects for a year?
Personally, I don't think LA should be creating and leading, so much as
supporting and encouraging -- ie, finding people doing good things
already, and either helping other people repeat their success, or helping
them do the same thing bigger and better.

Totally agree.

Post by Anthony Towns
I think that's the lesson from l.c.a, and I don't think we can do it well,
without LA having representation in each state.

Disagree, as you well know.

Post by Anthony Towns

While I am quite frustrated with the minutes issue, I don't see how
having a member of the committee in your state would seriously help.

Having someone you can _talk to_ is what helps. You, personally, don't
have a problem with the lack of minutes, because you can just ask Pia what
happened. Other people in SLUG can do the same, and other people in Sydney
can visit a SLUG meeting if they feel the need. It's not so plausible to
do that if you live in Brisbane.

You can mail the committee. You can mail Pia in public. You can shame the
committee on the public mailing list. You can probably reach me more easily
than Pia, and I would be happy to give you (not everyone) her phone number.
Pia doesn't regularly go to SLUG. Pia doesn't regularly read the SLUG list.
Most people in SLUG don't really know who she is. I would strongly suggest
that they have as much access to her as you do. But it's a matter for *you*
and anyone else to make that contact. It really doesn't matter if the person
is in the same city or not, we do most of this stuff electronically anyway.

Post by Anthony Towns

Post by Anthony Towns
In summary: we've got a choice, we can either have local involvement
in Linux Australia in six Australian capital cities, or not.
Involvement is community-centric, not locality-centric.

Communities are locality-centric. That's what LUGs are. More to the point,
stuff that isn't locality centric doesn't need LA, LA's needed for the
stuff that's specific to one particular locale - Australia.

That is the locality that is important to me: Australia.

Post by Anthony Towns
The reason Debian works so well for you is that there's very little
activity that *you* can't take part in. You can subscribe to the lists,
lurk on irc, look at the source and the changelogs, poke through CVS, etc
[0]. With Linux Australia, that's not the case: most of the activity is
locale based, whether it be linux.conf.au, or a LUG meeting, or chatting
with some government types, or giving a talk at a conference in Geneva, or
a teleconference or face-to-face board meeting.
Given Debian can focus on technical issues, and Linux Australia is
substantially interested in more political issues, I don't really think
that LA can hope to match Debian in the "doesn't matter where you are"
game.

I strongly disagree. The locality specific stuff is dealt with per-locale,
via the independent linux.conf.au organising team and LUGs. What LA does
isn't locale-specific, other than the locale of "Australia". It's function
as a meta-organisation for the community and LUGs can be dealt with in media
that are also non-locale-specific. It is the *LUGs* who do the local work,
and deal with the local issues, and they are a big input factor on anything
that LA would do locally.

Example: If LA were to host an event in Sydney, I'd get really snotty if
SLUG weren't involved, even though I have no official capacity with SLUG any
more. I would mail the LA list and say, "Dudes, I'm really disappointed in
this, why isn't SLUG involved? They are your hands in Sydney. That's pretty
unfair, and you are not making use of the people who matter on the ground."
And I would agree with anyone else, from any other city, who felt that LA
was behaving in the same way. (Also, I think that if LUGs are organising
stuff that may have a degree of interest nationally, they should get LA to
spread the word and help with the national meta stuff. Working hand-in-hand
without stomping on each other's toes. That'd be rad.)

I honestly think the real solution to your problems is to fix the openness
and transparency problems the committee has had this year. I understand that
it may be hard to do in the first year of newfound openness (LA was
previously either mired in public flamewars, not doing anything at all, or a
very closed non-community organisation). It's hard particularly when LA has
had to rebuild itself from square one due to the mistakes made in the past.

If the elected committee can fix that this year, LA will totally rock. I
think that's the source of your problems. Well, as well as you QLD dudes not
getting involved in the community enough. :-)

- Jeff

[Leon Brooks]

Post by Jeff Waugh
This is a specific case, and one that I too am not happy about (I
just hadn't expressed that publically yet). Here's why: In previous
years, the tradition was to select the location *at* the conference,
so everyone could sit down and have a good chat about it, and nut it
out together. That didn't happen this year.

There are points from both sides which haven't yet been brought out
here.

When WA won the bid last year, it was pretty much a foregone conclusion:
we were the only ones ready and enthusiastic, and the video clip was
basically just a coup de grace.

I can't yet comment on the choice of venue for 2005 but the situation is

Post by Jeff Waugh
I am unhappy with this on two counts. First, it was an unannounced
break with tradition. I thought that tradition was very important, so
I probably would have brought up my disagreement with it were the
change proposed. But, if the reasons behind it were good, I probably
would have supported it. As it stands, a choice was made, no one even
knows who yet, and ho one had the opportunity to express concern
about the change in tradition before it was made.

I agree that this was bad. I suspect that amongst other things the 2005
venue won't be trying as hard to make their case at this conf.

I didn't consider the history/tradition angle at the time since the
decision seemed reasonably clear-cut, and that was lame.

Post by Jeff Waugh
Note: I am lame because I didn't respond to this as soon as it
happened. I should have done that.

True, but maybe it wouldn't have helped either.

Post by Jeff Waugh
You do. They are the committee. They answer to the community. They
are known to the community. You have IRC, this list, people who live
near them, the committee mailing list, and you can easily get their
phone numbers too. When you say "no one to talk to" it really means
that you didn't use the possible methods of following these things up
to your best advantage.

You took one paragraph to say what I used about seven to not quite say.

Post by Jeff Waugh
I strongly disagree. The locality specific stuff is dealt with
per-locale, via the independent linux.conf.au organising team and
LUGs. What LA does isn't locale-specific, other than the locale of
"Australia". It's function as a meta-organisation for the community
and LUGs can be dealt with in media that are also
non-locale-specific. It is the *LUGs* who do the local work, and deal
with the local issues, and they are a big input factor on anything
that LA would do locally.

Well said.

Post by Jeff Waugh
I honestly think the real solution to your problems is to fix the
openness and transparency problems the committee has had this year. I
understand that it may be hard to do in the first year of newfound
openness (LA was previously either mired in public flamewars, not
doing anything at all, or a very closed non-community organisation).
It's hard particularly when LA has had to rebuild itself from square
one due to the mistakes made in the past.

Agree; lots of administrivia had to be figured out incrementally. And
our poor overworked secretary was dealing with minutes from all corners
of the globe.

And in fact location is a *dis*advantage because ticket prices and
travel times from Perth are much higher. If you could see your way
clear to only electing New South Welshmen this year, the Committee
could reasonably have face2face meetings every fortnight.

Cheers; Leon

[Stewart Smith]

Post by Jeff Waugh
This is a specific case, and one that I too am not happy about (I just
hadn't expressed that publically yet). Here's why: In previous years, the
tradition was to select the location *at* the conference, so everyone could
sit down and have a good chat about it, and nut it out together. That didn't

Hopefully my previous mail explaining some of the reasons in making the
decision early helps clear up the non-happiness.

Post by Jeff Waugh
I honestly think the real solution to your problems is to fix the openness
and transparency problems the committee has had this year. I understand that
it may be hard to do in the first year of newfound openness (LA was
previously either mired in public flamewars, not doing anything at all, or a
very closed non-community organisation). It's hard particularly when LA has
had to rebuild itself from square one due to the mistakes made in the past.

I think (and hope) that at least this year we've made a fairly big dent
in the problem - and although not a perfect solution, it's pretty darn
good. While there is progress still to be made - how far we've come (as
you illustrate) is pretty impressive.

Post by Jeff Waugh
If the elected committee can fix that this year, LA will totally rock. I
think that's the source of your problems. Well, as well as you QLD dudes not
getting involved in the community enough. :-)

I know both Pia and myself (and others) intend (well, want to, assuming
we're re-elected) to keep fixing these problems and make LA rock so hard
you'll only find it in the "heavy" section :)
--
Stewart Smith (stewart at linux.org.au)
Vice President, Linux Australia

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/attachments/20040108/3c9bf925/attachment.pgp

[Leon Brooks]

Post by Anthony Towns
The main reason for this is that no one in Qld thinks LA particularly
matters. It's been a Sydney-obsessed thing forever, and whenever we
try to broaden its horizons, we get told we're not kickarse enough.

You want broad horizons? Come to WA, we've got broads to spare... hmmm,

Post by Anthony Towns
I think it's indicative that the only people to nominate themselves
for the officer slots are from states that had exec members this
year. I think it's also interesting that of the newbies, four applied
for any of the four officer slots, while ten (with an overlap of
three) applied for the three ordinary positions.

SYD == 4megapeople, MEL == 3megapeople, PER == 1.5megapeople, CBR == way
less than a megaperson, yet CBR has twice as many rep's as PER. Unfair!

Post by Anthony Towns

Post by Jeff Waugh
I want *good* people on the committee, not people who live in
certain places.

Why, exactly? What do you want Linux Australia to achieve? Do you
think it should just be a forum and an expense account that whichever
seven people get elected use to promote their pet projects for a
year?

Kim, care to comment on LinMagAU and "pet projects"?

* I want to see LA equipped with steelies, so it can stick its
foot in more doors.

* I want to see the current steady increase in energy continued.

* I want to see it continue to represent people besides the
corporate behemoths.

* I want to see a conf on Cable Beach one year.

* I want to see LA channel funding between people with money to
spend and the aforementioned small guys (this year Tetrinet
'bots, next year F-117 'bots? $50 a head donated as one prize?
Consider where we could put a dozen "prizes" :-).

* I want to see the job boards continue and flourish<*>.

* I *don't* want to see LA get bogged down in standard business
concerns (but I'm happy to see it as a go-between for SLPWA,
OSV et al until a better organisation gets forged for that).

* I *don't* want to see it buried in politics; part of the FOSS
magic is keeping things low-level, technical and pragmatic.

* I want to see it stay unconventional; I'd even be happy with
David Lloyd on Committee if that's what it took<**>.

* I don't want it so committed to any one policy or attitude that
it fossilises (beyond, of course, generalisations like
integrity, enthusiasm and care).

Post by Anthony Towns
I don't think we can do it well, without LA
having representation in each state.

No worries. Which of the nominees is from NT or Tas? Maybe next year we
can do dot-cx and all.

Or perhaps we should lock you and Bret into a room and see who survives;
Bret's allergic to location and you want to cover all locations. If we
wrote one-per-state into the Constitution we truly would be a digital
Parliament, with the larger states badly under-represented per capita
or per hectare.

And how about WA? Kununurra and Broome and Hedland and Geraldton and
Perth and Augusta and Esperance and Kalgoorlie are all utterly
different, and that's just the towns. Should we have a certain
percentage of rep's from the country? Should our borders match the
State borders or not?

You need to support your choice of the state as being the electoral
unit, because I can't.

Post by Anthony Towns
Having someone you can _talk to_ is what helps.

I'll go remote-area rep, since I'm in the most isolated city in the
world. Talk to me. 0409655359.

Post by Anthony Towns
It's not so plausible to do that if you live in Brisbane.

Or Broome. Talk to Ben about that at the conf. Hey, you do know about
these cool little gadgets, some of them even have blue LEDs, called
'phones?

Post by Anthony Towns
With a local LA ctte member, if I'd thought the Digital Agenda stuff
was important enough, I could've pestered them easily enough in person,

Email committee@ and if you're that desperate for a quick response, do
it daily. Things will happen, trust me.

Post by Anthony Towns
LUG meeting, or chatting with some government types, or giving a talk
at a conference in Geneva,

You sound as if, viewed from Geneva or Brazil, there was a perceptible
difference between Brisbane and Sydney (or even Perth), but there
isn't.

Post by Anthony Towns
or face-to-face board meeting.

Rare chickens, them. The ratio of teleconferences to face-to-faces has
been about, what, fifteen to one? Welcome to the Big Country, dude.

Cheers; Leon


<*> Hmmm. I'm wondering if we could do a project-seeking-resources and
donors-seeking-projects dating service through them?

<**> That's for the "facial hair" comment, Mr Lloyd. (-:

[Anthony Towns]

Post by Leon Brooks

Post by Anthony Towns
I don't think we can do it well, without LA
having representation in each state.

No worries. Which of the nominees is from NT or Tas? Maybe next year we
can do dot-cx and all.

Yes, I expect LA's activities in NT, Tassie and Christmas Island will
be below par over the course of the year. I'm not sure what can be done
about it.

Post by Leon Brooks
Or perhaps we should lock you and Bret into a room and see who survives;

Uh, with comments like that, do you really wonder why I'm not inclined
to call you to have a brief discussion on crazy ideas I've had to see if
they might be worthwhile? I can't say I particularly care to be equated
with the resident crank.

Post by Leon Brooks
If we wrote one-per-state into the Constitution we truly would be a digital
Parliament,

You'll not I haven't suggested we do any such thing.

Post by Leon Brooks
with the larger states badly under-represented per capita
or per hectare.

Still seems better than dividing 0 by capita or hectare.

Post by Leon Brooks
And how about WA? Kununurra and Broome and Hedland and Geraldton and
Perth and Augusta and Esperance and Kalgoorlie are all utterly
different, and that's just the towns. Should we have a certain
percentage of rep's from the country? Should our borders match the
State borders or not?

Having someone in Perth is better than only having people in
Sydney. Especially given the tendency for Australians to live in capital
cities, and that it's early enough days yet that we don't actually have
anyone outside the capitals volunteering, afaics.

Post by Leon Brooks

Post by Anthony Towns
Having someone you can _talk to_ is what helps.

I'll go remote-area rep, since I'm in the most isolated city in the
world. Talk to me. 0409655359.

No offense, but I've got nothing to say to you. I don't even know you.

Post by Leon Brooks

Post by Anthony Towns
With a local LA ctte member, if I'd thought the Digital Agenda stuff
was important enough, I could've pestered them easily enough in person,

it daily. Things will happen, trust me.

Uh, if I want a quick response, there's not much good me having to do
something on a daily basis for an extended period, is there?

In any event, informal policies like this are _exactly_ the reason why
it's useful to have someone local who's in the know and can clue you in
on them. Resending mail once a day is a good way of pissing off a lot
of people into ignoring you forever, it's certainly not something I'd
try out of the blue. Cold calling people you don't know well, who've
got day jobs on issues you think are important but they might not give
a damn about doesn't seem particularly sensible either.

Post by Leon Brooks

Post by Anthony Towns
LUG meeting, or chatting with some government types, or giving a talk
at a conference in Geneva,

You sound as if, viewed from Geneva or Brazil, there was a perceptible
difference between Brisbane and Sydney (or even Perth), but there
isn't.

Viewed from Brisbane, there's no difference between LA in 2002 and LA
in 2003. That's the problem.

(I've no idea what makes you think I sounded like that, so there's
nothing relevant I can reply. Sorry.)

Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj at humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we can.
http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/attachments/20040109/72d56ee5/attachment.pgp

[Jeff Waugh]

<quote who="Anthony Towns">

Post by Anthony Towns
In any event, informal policies like this are _exactly_ the reason why
it's useful to have someone local who's in the know and can clue you in on
them. Resending mail once a day is a good way of pissing off a lot of
people into ignoring you forever, it's certainly not something I'd try out
of the blue. Cold calling people you don't know well, who've got day jobs
on issues you think are important but they might not give a damn about
doesn't seem particularly sensible either.

Dude, this is what the committee is for. If we can't contact them, bug them,
make sure they communicate with us, call them, ask that they be responsible
for their roles, then we have a problem.

I think you are using this as an excuse to make your point. The committee
*are* accountable to us. If you are not comfortable with contacting the
committee or working with them - as the rest of us are! - then I don't think
the problem is on the committee's side.

You have no reason to feel uncomfortable about contacting the committee, or
ensuring that they do your job. Even if you - like I have on a couple of
occasions this year - get an icy reception some of the time. :-)

- Jeff

[Anthony Towns]

Post by Jeff Waugh

Post by Anthony Towns
Cold calling people you don't know well, who've got day jobs
on issues you think are important but they might not give a damn about
doesn't seem particularly sensible either.

Dude, this is what the committee is for.

Dude, the committee is meant to do whatever it takes to work with it's
members, not to demand its members work in the way that's most convenient
for it.

That's what you just said, so presumably we agree, but one of those
ways that's convenient for lots of people is being available for face
to face discussions. If that weren't true, conferences wouldn't be as
cool as they are.

Post by Jeff Waugh
I think you are using this as an excuse to make your point. The committee
*are* accountable to us. If you are not comfortable with contacting the
committee or working with them - as the rest of us are! -

Well, of course you are: you've got _three_ representatives in NSW,
including the president and the immediate past-president.

Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj at humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we can.
http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/attachments/20040109/eb2a4c49/attachment.pgp

[Jeff Waugh]

<quote who="Anthony Towns">

Post by Anthony Towns

Post by Jeff Waugh
I think you are using this as an excuse to make your point. The
committee *are* accountable to us. If you are not comfortable with
contacting the committee or working with them - as the rest of us are! -

Well, of course you are: you've got _three_ representatives in NSW,
including the president and the immediate past-president.

Sorry, no beat-around-the-bush way to say it - you are wrong about this
point. That has no serious bearing on my relationship with LA. This list
does. The lug@ list did. I don't delve into the current President's day to
day work with LA (though I do get the rantage every now and then), and I try
to avoid socialising with the immediate past-President as much as possible.

- Jeff

[Leon Brooks]

Post by Anthony Towns
Dude, the committee is meant to do whatever it takes to work with
it's members, not to demand its members work in the way that's most
convenient for it.

True at face value, but as with most things moderation is necessary. As
you will no doubt discover if you're elected. (-;

<speech>
If the Committee were to try to please everybody, it would get nowhere.
We'd have to please Anthony Towns, and Jeff Waugh, and Bret Busby, and
David Lloyd, and if you can't see a problem intrinsic to even those few
names taken together as a set, however valuable they are individually,
then I recommend taking some quiet time to think about it. In the
immortal words of Herbert Bayard Swope:

I cannot give you a formula for success, but I can give you
the formula for failure - which is: try to please everybody.

I can also give you another smartassed but valuable quote from Lester
Thurow which applies equally to the Committee and those seeking to
change it:

A competitive world has two possibilities for you: you can
lose or, if you want to win, you can change.

Open Source offers a third alternative: you can exercise your talents
for and obtain support for your weaknesses from the community, instead
of fighting it.

Many large corporations haven't learned that lesson yet, and may fly
into the ground because of it. LA Committee demonstrated that it had
learned that lesson when it voluntarily underwent revolution last year,
changed, threw itself on the mercy of the community, and after that
trial by ordeal only one of their number remained (those complaining
about honourary life memberships might want to keep that self-sacrifice
in mind, as might those complaining about conspiracies).

I'm sure that actions this drastic will be necessary every so often, but
if it happens again this year, please keep Pia Smith and Andrew Cowie
where they are, plus if you must replace Anand<*> Kumria then at least
choose someone careful like Mark Tearle to replace him with rather than
making a locality- or politically-based decision. I also think you'd be
crazy to axe Stewart Smith, who is currently putting a lot of time and
effort directly into improving LA's software and political
infrastructure (and exostructure). That leaves me, happy as an OCM but
well aware of the breath-taking calibre of some of the people nominated
for the seat, and two empty pews where Hugh and Tridge once were.

I also feel impelled to warn incoming nominees that they will be
expected to land running. Your first official act following election is
scheduled for lunchtime on Friday. (-: The time to read the org docs
and minutes is *now* :-)
</speech>

Cheers; Leon


OT footnote:
<*> I must confess to having taken a year to start pronouncing our
esteemed Treasurer's name right. By default, I said it like
an-and, but IRL it's closer to arn'nd. Anand doesn't seem to
have been too upset by it, as I'm not too perturbed when someone
calls me Neil (why Niel? shrug) instead of Leon, nevertheless
it irks me that I haven't noticed and corrected it earlier.
Sorry Anand!

[Anthony Towns]

Post by Leon Brooks
I also feel impelled to warn incoming nominees that they will be
expected to land running. Your first official act following election is
scheduled for lunchtime on Friday. (-: The time to read the org docs
and minutes is *now* :-)

What minutes would those be, exactly?

Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj at humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we can.
http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/attachments/20040109/8d55da2f/attachment.pgp

[Stewart Smith]

Post by Anthony Towns
What minutes would those be, exactly?

http://www.linux.org.au/minutes/

Right up to the 6th of December, the most recent set of minutes that
we've approved.

Note that we usually would have had more meetings around late december -
but there was feasting, holidays, drinking and family involved, so well,
scheduling was difficult :)
--
Stewart Smith <stewart at linux.org.au>
Linux Australia Inc
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/attachments/20040110/c5b0fc33/attachment.pgp

[Anthony Towns]

Post by Stewart Smith

Post by Anthony Towns

Post by Leon Brooks
I also feel impelled to warn incoming nominees that they will be
expected to land running. Your first official act following election is
scheduled for lunchtime on Friday. (-: The time to read the org docs
and minutes is *now* :-)

What minutes would those be, exactly?

http://www.linux.org.au/minutes/

Hrm, still not seeing anything about lunchtime on Friday. Sure we're
not talking about lunchtime on Saturday?

(And surely it's the outgoing ctte's responsibility to resolve outstanding
commitments like that?)

Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj at humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we can.
http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/attachments/20040110/04a675fa/attachment.pgp

[Stewart Smith]

Post by Anthony Towns
Hrm, still not seeing anything about lunchtime on Friday. Sure we're
not talking about lunchtime on Saturday?

There's a lunch meeting going on with a bunch of people from another
org, and it'd be good to have people there from both cttes (2003 and
2004) so that the new people learn a bit about us, and what could happen
in the future.
--
Stewart Smith (stewart at linux.org.au)
Vice President, Linux Australia

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/attachments/20040110/2956f3bb/attachment.pgp

[Leon Brooks]

Post by Anthony Towns
Hrm, still not seeing anything about lunchtime on Friday.

For a very simple reason: the minutes from that meeting haven't been
approved yet.

OTToMH the meeting at which this is scheduled to happen is on Thursday,
but if we can gather quorum earlier we *might* have a quick meeting to
approve those and deal with a couple of other administrivia that have
arisen since.

Cheers; Leon

[Stewart Smith]

Post by Anthony Towns
Hrm, still not seeing anything about lunchtime on Friday. Sure we're
not talking about lunchtime on Saturday?

There's a lunch meeting going on with a bunch of people from another
org, and it'd be good to have people there from both cttes (2003 and
2004) so that the new people learn a bit about us, and what could happen
in the future.
--
Stewart Smith (stewart at linux.org.au)
Vice President, Linux Australia

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/attachments/20040110/2956f3bb/attachment-0001.pgp

[Leon Brooks]

Post by Anthony Towns
Well, of course you are: you've got _three_ representatives in NSW,
including the president and the immediate past-president.

Would it help to point out that the main server (digital.linux.org.au,
which is actually an Intel box) is located in WA<*> - not NSW - so I'm
the one who gets to play George Jetson when something goes seriously
awry?

Cheers; Leon


<*> along with at least 2 of the 7 past Committee, on premises formerly
occupied by the former employer (AceOnLine) of one of them, at no
cost to LA.

[Leon Brooks]

Post by Anthony Towns
No offense, but I've got nothing to say to you. I don't even know you.
In any event, informal policies like this are _exactly_ the reason
why it's useful to have someone local who's in the know and can clue
you in on them. Resending mail once a day is a good way of pissing
off a lot of people into ignoring you forever, it's certainly not
something I'd try out of the blue. Cold calling people you don't know
well, who've got day jobs on issues you think are important but they
might not give a damn about doesn't seem particularly sensible
either.

True. So spend time getting to know the new Committee while you're at
the conf, even if they're from Queensland.

Qld in particular is kind of interesting because aside form the NT it'd
be the closest thing au has to a multi-headed state, with a fair few
people in Townsville, Gold Coast, Cairns etc. Bunbury is the only one
within hailing distance of Perth in WA. So if your Qld rep lived in
Cairns, would you be any better off than if they lived in Ultimo?

Cheers; Leon

[Anthony Towns]

Post by Leon Brooks

Post by Anthony Towns
No offense, but I've got nothing to say to you. I don't even know you.

That be true :)

Post by Leon Brooks
True. So spend time getting to know the new Committee while you're at
the conf, even if they're from Queensland.

The problem with this theory is there are so many other things to do at
the conf. Man, I hate having problems like that.

Post by Leon Brooks
Qld in particular is kind of interesting because aside form the NT it'd
be the closest thing au has to a multi-headed state, with a fair few
people in Townsville, Gold Coast, Cairns etc. Bunbury is the only one
within hailing distance of Perth in WA. So if your Qld rep lived in
Cairns, would you be any better off than if they lived in Ultimo?

I've at least visited Cairns in the past (I was, what, 12? Actually,
I think I took a flight last year that stopped in Cairns); I don't even
have any idea where Ultimo is. It certainly seems a lot more reasonable
to expect a Qld ctte member to try spending some time visiting areas in
Queensland, than someone from Sydney or Perth. Pia's made a top effort,
but hasn't actually managed to visit all the capitals, eg. Likewise,
it seems a bit more reasonable for people in "regional centres" to
visit their local capital to have a chat with a ctte member, than to
have to visit Sydney or similar. Or vice-versa, in the event we get some
nominations from people outside capitals in future.

Okay, I think I'm coming on stronger than's warranted now. I'll
try to stop. You assistance in not tempting me to reply further is
appreciated :)

Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj at humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we can.
http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/attachments/20040109/443950a2/attachment.pgp

[Paul Shirren]

Living outside a capital city, and closer to NSW and Vic than
Adelaide, I can see some weaknesses to the state rep argument. A
rep in the capital 2.5 hrs away has less utility from my POV
than an LA that is open and accessable via internet.

The idea that you have to cosy up to some local rep in real life
to get the low down on LA activities seems more elitist and
exclusionary to me than an LA which is run openly and which
takes an active role communicating with its membership.

It seems to me that the desire for a local rep is partly
1 a serious desire for better representation
2 parochialism
3 issues with communication with the past and present LA

No argument with point 1. I just don't think it is a big deal
personally. Experience, contributions, personality and platform
are much more important than state of origin IMO.

I dismiss 2 outright. I am sick of state vs state stupidity.
Every state has something different to contribute and its own
proud achievements.

LA could perhaps lift its game on point 3, communication with
membership. Accurate and easily accessable minutes, regular
announcements to the list etc. As for getting matters raised
with LA I am not sure a local member is going to be any more
accessable or effective than emailing committee at linux.org.au.

[Anthony Towns]

On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:07:25PM +1030, Paul Shirren wrote:

I admit, I'm addicted.

Post by Paul Shirren
It seems to me that the desire for a local rep is partly
2 parochialism
I dismiss 2 outright. I am sick of state vs state stupidity.

State versus state *competition* is great. Trying to do better than
Sydney, specifically because it was Sydney, was one of the motivations
for us doing the Brisbane l.c.a, and I think that one of Perth and
Adelaide both got a bit of extra motivation from trying to prove they
were a better host city than Canberra (and after they got the conference,
proving they could do a better job of it than anyone previous had).

As long as it's in the right spirit (which l.c.a definitely has been),
that sort of thing's both fun and productive.

Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj at humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we can.
http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/attachments/20040109/ab5ab963/attachment.pgp

[Jeff Waugh]

<quote who="Anthony Towns">

Post by Anthony Towns
State versus state *competition* is great. Trying to do better than
Sydney, specifically because it was Sydney, was one of the motivations for
us doing the Brisbane l.c.a, and I think that one of Perth and Adelaide
both got a bit of extra motivation from trying to prove they were a better
host city than Canberra (and after they got the conference, proving they
could do a better job of it than anyone previous had).

Oh, far out dude. Everyone wants their LCA to be the best, and everyone
wants LCA to get better and better every year. It has jack-squat-fuck-all to
do with state-vs-state competition. I'm sorry, but you seem to be obsessed
with this silly notion.

- Jeff

[Michael Hockey]

I have just been reading the objectives and constitution.
The objectives talk about particulars problems of Australia
due to geographic size and high urbanisation. ( we are the
most urbanized in the world, I believe). Despite the high
urbanization, we have not developed distinctive dialects to a
marked extent. However just like our political system, people
do prefer to associate locally for a great number of things
eg football, cricket. For some events, we do act as a nation
but not for technical things AFAIK.

Im well aware of the problems of large committees but perhaps
we should be thinking of putting in a clause that ensures
that there is regional representation in the ordinary member
representatives so 4 office bearers + 6 ordinary (regional)
members.

On a supporting note, we do business in 3 states and maintain
contacts in 2 others, from my experience people think home
town first and some places are very cliquey - Canberra and
Brisbane are two that I know. I do try to see my outlying staff
but frequent airtravel is expensive, as a solution to that we
are looking at opensource videoconferencing solutions so that
we utilize our basically broadband network, humans do seem
to need to see the other person's body language from time to
time, definitely more frequently than an annual conference. This
list does get very heated perhaps talking and seeing would
help.

Mike

Michael Hockey Miju Systems http://www.miju.com.au/
Phone: [phone] PO Box 176, Corinda Q 4075, Australia
Email: michael.hockey at miju.com.au ABN 48 065 548 496
Fax: [phone]

[Ryan Verner]

Post by Jeff Waugh
Oh, far out dude. Everyone wants their LCA to be the best, and everyone
wants LCA to get better and better every year. It has
jack-squat-fuck-all to
do with state-vs-state competition. I'm sorry, but you seem to be obsessed
with this silly notion.

Yeah, like, what the - it has /nothing/ to do with competition. We
just want each LCA to be even more kickarse than the last, and by hell,
Adelaide's LCA2004 will be kickarse.

R

--

linux.conf.au 2004 - Adelaide, Australia
http://lca2004.linux.org.au/

"Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it."

[Stewart Smith]

Post by Paul Shirren
LA could perhaps lift its game on point 3, communication with
membership. Accurate and easily accessable minutes, regular
announcements to the list etc. As for getting matters raised
with LA I am not sure a local member is going to be any more
accessable or effective than emailing committee at linux.org.au.

In the minutes case, please remember that we were seeking legal advice
on if publishing them (with discussions of specific topics intact) would
damage our legal position in regards to such matters. We'd actually be
doing the community a great disservice if we didn't wait for such legal
advice.

We're sorry we didn't get it all sorted out sooner - but finite
resources, finding the right people for the job etc contributed.

The regular announcements thing seems like it should be back on the
table - i think it fell off for a while this year purely because of
everybody's time constraints - we were all putting a fair amount of
effort into good things (both LA and non-LA related) and still helping
LA find its feet.
--
Stewart Smith <stewart at linux.org.au>
Linux Australia Inc
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/attachments/20040109/93daee81/attachment.pgp

[Leon Brooks]

Post by Paul Shirren
Living outside a capital city, and closer to NSW and Vic than
Adelaide, I can see some weaknesses to the state rep argument.

Talk to Ben Jensz about that. I'm his closest rep and he's 24 hours'
drive north of me. Next closest would actually be Brisbane if we had
one there, then Canberra.

Post by Paul Shirren
The idea that you have to cosy up to some local rep in real life
to get the low down on LA activities seems more elitist and
exclusionary to me than an LA which is run openly and which
takes an active role communicating with its membership.

Well said.

Post by Paul Shirren
Every state has something different to contribute and its own
proud achievements.

Yes, especially WA.

Post by Paul Shirren
LA could perhaps lift its game on point 3, communication with
membership.

Yes. AfC is considering a newsletter which I guess counts as "regular
announcements". Several of the minutes were held up pending legal
advice, otherwise they tracked reasonably well (typically a week or two
after the meeting, modulo that legal issue plus one delay while AfC was
uber-busy overseas).

Post by Paul Shirren
As for getting matters raised
with LA I am not sure a local member is going to be any more
accessable or effective than emailing committee at linux.org.au.

I have a policy of sending at least an ACK if I see an alien message and
nobody else has ACKed it.

Perhaps we can nominate a list monkey and list backup monkey
(http://www.nightflight.com/foldoc-bin/foldoc.cgi?scratch+monkey) for
this very purpose, from among those Committee who are usually near an
email client?

Cheers; Leon

[Ben Jensz]

Post by Leon Brooks
Talk to Ben Jensz about that. I'm his closest rep and he's 24 hours'
drive north of me. Next closest would actually be Brisbane if we had
one there, then Canberra.

24 hours is a pretty conservative estimate really, you'd need a lead
foot and a good dose of insanity to drive at the speeds (especially at
night) you'd need to be going to get here from Perth in that time.


/ Ben

[Leon Brooks]

Post by Ben Jensz

Post by Leon Brooks
Talk to Ben Jensz about that. I'm his closest rep and he's 24 hours'
drive north of me. Next closest would actually be Brisbane if we had
one there, then Canberra.

24 hours is a pretty conservative estimate really, you'd need a lead
foot and a good dose of insanity to drive at the speeds (especially
at night) you'd need to be going to get here from Perth in that time.

Er... done? (-:

Photos from the trip are available on application for the curious.

Did 120km/hr most of the way up, Sandfire was under 8 inches of water
and copious quantities of frogs at the time (14 April 2000, three days
before Rosita flattened Eco Beach).

Cheers; Leon

[Ben Jensz]

Post by Ben Jensz
24 hours is a pretty conservative estimate really, you'd need a lead
foot and a good dose of insanity to drive at the speeds (especially
at night) you'd need to be going to get here from Perth in that time.

Like I said, a good dose of insanity ;o)

Day time driving is fine, but night time driving at anything above
80km/hr is mad unless you're driving a beefy 4WD with a decent bullbar.


/ Ben

[Leon Brooks]

Post by Ben Jensz
Day time driving is fine, but night time driving at anything above
80km/hr is mad unless you're driving a beefy 4WD with a decent
bullbar.

The only time I went that slowly was dodging frogs near Sandfire - or to
be brutally candid, dodging occasional potholes the size of a Beetle
and letting the frogs make their own arrangements.

I remember crossing the Nullarbor (in 1985?) in a Tarago and having to
do 30km/h on some sections so I could swerve between the 'roos that
dotted the road like trees in an uncleared paddock. Is that insane
enough? (-:

I also remember SYD -> MEL on the same trip, inching up to a yellow
flashing light in really thick fog, visibility about ten meters, to
discover that the light was warning me of 30-meter visibility. To give
you some idea of the accuracy of that 30 meters, I was looking up at
about 30 degrees by the time I could actually read the high-contrast
illuminated sign. Much foggier and the sign would have been too far up
to read. Irony, anyone? (-:

I also remember (glances off a current topic) 20km/h down that godawful
hill in Adelaide (in about 1988), and seeing 3/4 of a long semitrailer
sticking up out of the downhill side of the fog, at a funny angle,
wheels up, three axles in the air one morning. Range about 50m. Not a
sight to inspire one to recklessness.

Cheers; Leon

[Paul Shirren]

Post by Leon Brooks
Yes. AfC is considering a newsletter which I guess counts as
"regular announcements". Several of the minutes were held up
pending legal advice, otherwise they tracked reasonably well
(typically a week or two after the meeting, modulo that legal
issue plus one delay while AfC was uber-busy overseas).

I guess I agree up until June. I can't find anything since June
at http://linux.org.au/minutes/. I realise the need to keep
sensitive stuff out but that seems a bit extreme. Edited down
versions sans legal stuff would have been appreciated. I have
had a look at the Wiki, but that only seems to have action items
which are not very informative.

It is a bit rough on the existing committee members standing for
re-election because it is hard to see what they have been up to
for the last six months coming into the election.

I would like to see simple straight forward minutes (with legal
stuff embargoed if required) more readily available this year.

And a newsletter with a bit of gratuitous self promotion of all
the hard work you guys are doing would be a nice touch. It
doesn't have to be a big production, I thought Pia's email
http://lists.linux.org.au/archives/linux-aus/2003-September/msg00043.html
was pretty much spot on.

Post by Leon Brooks

As for getting matters raised with LA I am not sure a local
member is going to be any more accessable or effective than
emailing committee at linux.org.au.

I have a policy of sending at least an ACK if I see an alien
message and nobody else has ACKed it.

Cheers. I noticed and appreciated it at the time.

[Jeff Waugh]

<quote who="Leon Brooks">

Post by Leon Brooks
Yes. AfC is considering a newsletter which I guess counts as "regular
announcements". Several of the minutes were held up pending legal advice,
otherwise they tracked reasonably well (typically a week or two after the
meeting, modulo that legal issue plus one delay while AfC was uber-busy
overseas).

No one from the committee actually made it known that there were legal
issues in the way of providing the community with any information about the
work of the committee. I pinged you guys a few times, but didn't receive any
response that indicated the minutes could not be published.

So, what were the legal issues preventing LA from letting us know what was
happening with the organisation *at all*? Are they sorted out now? Will the
next committee have to deal with them?

- Jeff

[Jeff Waugh]

<quote who="Jeff Waugh">

Post by Jeff Waugh
So, what were the legal issues preventing LA from letting us know what was
happening with the organisation *at all*? Are they sorted out now? Will
the next committee have to deal with them?

Subsequently saw Stewart's mail regarding minutes being published, looks
like the May 28 minutes where the source of contention.

I have to agree with the views of some committee members and posters to this
list that a single issue such as this should *not* get in the way of formal
or informal reporting to the community (and membership!). Hopefully this can
be addressed more readily in the next committee.

Thanks,

- Jeff

[Anthony Towns]

Post by Jeff Waugh
No one from the committee actually made it known that there were legal
issues in the way of providing the community with any information about the
work of the committee. I pinged you guys a few times, but didn't receive any
response that indicated the minutes could not be published.

So, for comparison, I bumped into Stewart on IRC a few days ago, and
mentioned something related to LA, and got told roughly what was going
on with the minutes, and that it'd be fixed RSN (as apparently it has
been). Likewise, keeping my ear to the ground made it pretty obvious who
had gotten l.c.a 2005 not long after Hugh announced that someone had.
(Of course, now it's in the LA minutes, so anyone can find out...)

I can't understand why it'd be the case, but maybe I have better luck
with informal channels than Jeff, leading me to value them more highly
than Jeff does? Maybe I'm just a gossip queen.

(Maybe that's a good reason to have _less_ local representation --
you're less likely to annoy one of your local ctte members, and have
them all decide as a consequence to not tell you anything! :)

Theory: formal channels are more effective -- they reach more people,
more quickly; informal channels are more robust -- they don't fail
completely if there are things that shouldn't be talked about, or if
people start getting very busy.

Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj at humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we can.
http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/attachments/20040110/4abfa977/attachment.pgp

[Jeff Waugh]

<quote who="Anthony Towns">

Post by Anthony Towns
So, for comparison, I bumped into Stewart on IRC a few days ago, and
mentioned something related to LA, and got told roughly what was going on
with the minutes, and that it'd be fixed RSN (as apparently it has been).
Likewise, keeping my ear to the ground made it pretty obvious who had
gotten l.c.a 2005 not long after Hugh announced that someone had. (Of
course, now it's in the LA minutes, so anyone can find out...)
I can't understand why it'd be the case, but maybe I have better luck with
informal channels than Jeff, leading me to value them more highly than
Jeff does? Maybe I'm just a gossip queen.

Canberra was fairly obvious from the beginning, dude. :-) I have posted
questions on this list because I'm far more interested in seeing these
issues reported to the community, as they are supposed to be, rather than
talking to any member of the committee "quietly" or "in gossip". I think
that throughout the discussion, you've put an unhealthy emphasis on this
kind of informal information dispersal *precisely because* 2003's committee
were not able to fully satisfy our communication requirements. We should be
concentrating on fixing that, making sure the committee know what we expect,
etc., etc.

Post by Anthony Towns
Theory: formal channels are more effective -- they reach more people, more
quickly; informal channels are more robust -- they don't fail completely
if there are things that shouldn't be talked about, or if people start
getting very busy.

Also, ability to connect informal channels has little to do with locality!

- Jeff

[Andrew Cowie]

Post by Anthony Towns
Likewise, keeping my ear to the ground made it pretty obvious who
had gotten l.c.a 2005 not long after Hugh announced that someone had.

It's not a secret. Never has been. We were, however, requested by the
organizers of LCA 2004 to keep it under wraps so that it would not
adversely pull attention and interest away from this year's event.

<shrug> We listened.

Post by Anthony Towns
(Of course, now it's in the LA minutes, so anyone can find out...)

Given the above, this gives you some idea of the fine line to be walked
with such things. Of course it's in the minutes. We made the decision 6
December. Hugh posted a message 15 minutes later. But I couldn't release
those minutes until a) a subsequent meeting had formally accepted the
minutes (that's proper meeting procedure) and b) there was no longer a
sensitivity aspect to those minutes' content. As it is, we're about a
week too early, but I here we are having this discussion, so, so be it.

Now that they're published, you can read there a decision of why we
broke with "tradition". I knew it would be contentious, so I tried to be
clear in my notation of the discussion. <sigh> Writing to that degree of
depth takes *time*. Is it worth it? (to make it even barely consumable
by a public audience at some future time?) Debatable. Read on.

--

The real story is that formal minutes are NOT an effective communication
mechanism to an organization's membership. Newsletters are good for that
sort of thing, as are lots of other means.

That we collectively didn't do as great a job on that front as we could
have is a given. The question of how information is best disseminated,
and whose job such communications should be, is a question that next
year's Committee will have the joy of facing full on.

I *personally* don't even think they should be published. In February, I
wrote my peers with a note that in part said:

Forgive me, but I come from a number of environments where the
minutes of the Board of {Directors, School Governors, whatever}
are a very private thing. You don't, for example, ever get to
see the minutes of the Boards of Directors' meetings of a public
corporation, even if you are a shareholder. Nor do you get to
read the minutes of weekly [Federal Government] Cabinet
meetings, even though from that document flows most of executive
power in a Constitutional Monarchy such as Australia, Canada or
Britain.

I have written our Committee minutes with public consumption in
mind, which is why they're a tad on the verbose side. It's a
tradeoff - if they're too brief outsiders won't get it (they may
not anyway, but one has to try) and if verbose they take too
long to prepare.

I did, however, defer to the collective desire of my peers in this
matter, and so public they are.

It's easy to say (as has been suggested in this thread) "oh, just make a
public version of the minutes" but in my experience a) that's even more
clerical work, and b) it generally results in nothing actually being
said in public. Which brings us back to minutes not really being
suitable as a communications vehicle.

Jeff commented (with good humour) that "I don't like him" because he had
commented to me that he didn't think the form[at] of the minutes I
prepared was very good (well, he did do so in public without bothering
to chat with me privately first about it, which I'll admit I do find
distasteful). I don't mind that Jeff though [thinks] so, but again, I
believe the point conceals the real issue of "what is effective
communication, and how best to do it"; I do happen to believe that I
write good minutes, and I will certainly agree that they are a bit
laborious, but I am writing with the obligation of establishing due
diligence on the part of the Directors in mind. As Secretary, nothing
else matters to me.

I certainly don't think that such documents are really all that
effective from a public consumption standpoint, nor are they a
substitute for good a communications strategy. But that's not why
they're written they way they are, and that's really that.

--

I *personally* think that if we had focused on an effective public
communications vector, as opposed to having the Secretary to make
meeting minutes available (and then lulling ourselves into thinking that
this took care of the communications need), we would have done better on
the let-the-community-know-what-we're-up-to front.

Having said all this, which is pretty bloody disloyal as it is, I will
accept collective responsibility that we collectively didn't to better,
and not try to blade my peers.

You know what? This is deja-vu - as I quoted above, we've had this
conversation already. Looking back, all we did wrong was to have most of
our discussions on our private mailing list, committee at linux.org.au,
instead of here, on linux-aus at linux.org.au. Simple matter to correct for
next year.

AfC

[Jeff Waugh]

<quote who="Andrew Cowie">

Post by Andrew Cowie
Jeff commented (with good humour) that "I don't like him" because he had
commented to me that he didn't think the form[at] of the minutes I
prepared was very good (well, he did do so in public without bothering to
chat with me privately first about it, which I'll admit I do find
distasteful).

Whether the solution was to 'fix' the minutes or write something else, what
I said still stands -> public information from the committee has either not
been available, or in a format that is difficult to digest. I didn't bother
to raise it with you privately, because this is meant to be a wide open
community and organisation, and it was not personal criticism. You have a
public role - that's what happens.

I think you may be taking the formality of the minutes a little bit too
seriously, but that is probably a result of your background more than
anything else. I haven't been involved with, or experienced, non-profit
community organisations with BoD-style see-your-face-polished minutes;
generally they don't have the same financial or legal responsibilities and
liabilities, and have a totally different organisational focus (community
vs. competition, openness vs. save-our-arses, etc).

But, whether they're published this way or not, the ideas/goals expressed by
yourself, Pia and Stewart for next year's improved communication have been
great. Much rocking to be had.

Thanks,

- Jeff

[Stewart Smith]

Post by Jeff Waugh
I think you may be taking the formality of the minutes a little bit too
seriously, but that is probably a result of your background more than
anything else. I haven't been involved with, or experienced, non-profit
community organisations with BoD-style see-your-face-polished minutes;
generally they don't have the same financial or legal responsibilities and
liabilities, and have a totally different organisational focus (community
vs. competition, openness vs. save-our-arses, etc).

I too initially thought that maybe things were a bit formal - but once
AfC explained the motivation behind this (i.e. having a straight,
boring, hard to misinterpret way of covering our arses, among other
things previously mentioned) I was a lot more comfortable with it and
indeed, now am an avid supporter of that way of doing minutes.

Indeed, there are also good arguments for not making them public at all,
and only publishing summaries publicly - it does help people get the
hint that we do want to be an open organisation.

Maybe we should have a big sign on the minutes page saying that minutes
may be withheld from the public due to legal reasons (checking with a
lawyer or an actual decision that says "don't make that public")?

Post by Jeff Waugh
But, whether they're published this way or not, the ideas/goals expressed by
yourself, Pia and Stewart for next year's improved communication have been
great. Much rocking to be had.

Agreed - this will muchly help.
--
Stewart Smith <stewart at linux.org.au>
Linux Australia Inc
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/attachments/20040110/4b0adbbe/attachment.pgp

[Anand Kumria]

Post by Jeff Waugh
No one from the committee actually made it known that there were legal
issues in the way of providing the community with any information about the
work of the committee. I pinged you guys a few times, but didn't receive any
response that indicated the minutes could not be published.

Our initial advice had that even mentioning that legal issues were a
problem could be a problem. Subsquent advice has meant, after appropriate
modification of minutes, we can release minutes.

Post by Jeff Waugh
So, what were the legal issues preventing LA from letting us know what was
happening with the organisation *at all*?

ASIC authorised the change of name of ACN 008 211 201 to 'Linux
Australia Pty Ltd'. Subsequently ACN 008 211 201 also changed its name
and ACN 106 131 971 and ACN 106 123 022 (Linux Australia Pty Ltd and
Linux Australia Holdings Pty Ltd, respectively) were also been registered.

IPAustralia received TradeMark registration 955420 from one of those
organisations (the TM applications lists ACN 008211201) and subsequently
we received a letter from a legal firm.

The rest I'll leave up to speculation for now.

Post by Jeff Waugh
Are they sorted out now?

No.

Post by Jeff Waugh
Will the next committee have to deal with them?

Yes.

Regards,
Anand

[Stewart Smith]

Post by Anthony Towns
The main reason for this is that no one in Qld thinks LA particularly
matters. It's been a Sydney-obsessed thing forever, and whenever we try
to broaden its horizons, we get told we're not kickarse enough.

I'm sure qld is kick-arse enough for LA :)

I've got a tentative plan to be in Qld (around brisbane) for at least a
week in Feb (no travel booked or anything, going to be organising dates
around family there) - maybe meeting up then (as well as at the conf
next week) to discuss QLD related issues would be profitable?

I understand the value of physical presence - and would be happy to come
(and hey, even say a few words) at whatever UG meetings I can make.

lunch/dinner/beer at conf would rock too. Heck, I'm being Pia's
scheduler for everyone else at the conf - she can come too :)

Post by Anthony Towns
(For reference, I don't really like quotas, and I'm inclined to think
with a few extra slots up for election this wouldn't be a problem. I'm
also inclined to think that this doesn't need a permanent solution
with any great urgency. But on the other hand, I think this issue --
local representation being useful above and beyond just diversity and
new blood -- is worth a bit more serious consideration, and some more
persuasive support, than I think it's been given so far.)

Sounds like a good topic for discussions post-LA AGM at the conf. Could
really benefit from being face to face.
--
Stewart Smith (stewart at linux.org.au)
Vice President, Linux Australia

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/attachments/20040108/b451f57f/attachment.pgp

[Andrew Cowie]

Post by Anthony Towns
Pia's been
blogging from Geneva or something for some reason that seems LA related.

I'm going to stomp on that right now.

Pia was in Geneva attending the UN World Summit on the Information
Society as a part of the LPI delegation. She was able to contribute to
various sub-sessions of the summit, and helped staff LPI's booth.

She paid for her own travel out of her own pocket. She was able to stop
there en route to China, where she is taking a course presently. The
Summit itself was courtesy of the UN and the government of Switzerland.

I was also there, volunteering my time on behalf of LPI, and I likewise
paid my own way.

As it happens, a small detail that bears favourably on Linux Australia
did occur while we were there (which we'll be announcing at the
conference). However, even in spite of that, LINUX AUSTRALIA MADE NO
CONTRIBUTION WHATSOEVER TO EITHER OF US BEING THERE.

That you were too impolite to ask privately before making accusations in
public speaks poorly of your character - and besmirches your otherwise
well deserved (and hard earned) reputation.

AfC

[Jeff Waugh]

<quote who="Andrew Cowie">

Post by Andrew Cowie

Pia's been blogging from Geneva or something for some reason that seems
LA related.

That you were too impolite to ask privately before making accusations in
public speaks poorly of your character - and besmirches your otherwise
well deserved (and hard earned) reputation.

Hrm, it didn't sound like Anthony was making a negative accusation there, he
was just stating the situation as he saw it. It does seem that Pia's trip to
Geneva was LA related, and strengthed by LA's relationship with LPI.

Although I don't think it's entirely relevant in this case (because it was
not related to LA) - there has been no LA communication about it. So, that
may further the confusion.

I think AJ's example was just an example, not an accusation. :-)

- Jeff

[Anthony Towns]

Post by Andrew Cowie

Post by Anthony Towns
Pia's been
blogging from Geneva or something for some reason that seems LA related.

That you were too impolite to ask privately before making accusations in
public speaks poorly of your character - and besmirches your otherwise
well deserved (and hard earned) reputation.

Err, I was listing that as an achievement of LA -- something that had
happened -- not an accusation of anything improper. I'd thought getting
invited some fancy overseas conference sounded quite impressive, and I
was working under the assumption that y'all wouldn't've bothered if it
wasn't somehow useful and productive.

I didn't say, nor mean to imply, that you or Pia had been boondoggling, and
I apologise if it seemed otherwise.

Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj at humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we can.
http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/attachments/20040108/721b79e3/attachment.pgp

[Christopher Yeoh]

Post by Anthony Towns
Personally I expect people who've had a chat with Leon or Pia about
Linux Australia anytime in the past few months could give a much better
summary than that. Unfortunately, if you're not in Sydney or Perth,
you don't get much chance to do that.

I agree with Anthony that having a committee member local helps with
the information flow. Nearly everything I know about what LA has been
up to in the last year has been due to talking to committee members in
person.

Chris

[Jeff Waugh]

<quote who="Christopher Yeoh">

Post by Anthony Towns
Personally I expect people who've had a chat with Leon or Pia about
Linux Australia anytime in the past few months could give a much better
summary than that. Unfortunately, if you're not in Sydney or Perth, you
don't get much chance to do that.

I agree with Anthony that having a committee member local helps with the
information flow. Nearly everything I know about what LA has been up to in
the last year has been due to talking to committee members in person.

Hrm, actually, one thing that no one has addressed: Don't you think the idea
of having to speak to someone locally to find out about LA is a bad thing in
itself?

I think that is a bad thing. We should not have to do that. LA should be
properly reporting to the community via the mailing list, announce list and
minutes. This year, the committee hasn't delivered on this all that well.

I'm sure that all this energy will make sure they do so this year!

- Jeff

[Anthony Towns]

Post by Jeff Waugh
<quote who="Christopher Yeoh">

I agree with Anthony that having a committee member local helps with the
information flow. Nearly everything I know about what LA has been up to in
the last year has been due to talking to committee members in person.

Hrm, actually, one thing that no one has addressed: Don't you think the idea
of having to speak to someone locally to find out about LA is a bad thing in
itself?

*Having to* is bad. *Being able to* is good.

Post by Jeff Waugh
This year, the committee hasn't delivered on this all that well.

^^^^^^^^^

Post by Jeff Waugh
I'm sure that all this energy will make sure they do so this year!

^^^^^^^^^

*giggle*

Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj at humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we can.
http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/attachments/20040108/8a8ca18b/attachment.pgp

[Stewart Smith]

Post by Anthony Towns
For example, it was recently announced that the location for l.c.a 2005
had been decided. That's something I've an interest in, and that I've
been involved in helping with in the past, and in the past it's usually
decided at the preceeding conference. This time around, I didn't have
any idea anything was going on, let alone any opportunity to have any
input or offer any assistance.
That doesn't mean the decision that was made was bad, but it does indicate
LA's not making use of all the resources it's got available to it, and
that's worth examining.

The reasoning behind this move was as follows:
- we believed that the group of people who had the most familiarity with
the groups wanting to host lca05 was the LA committee (as we had been
talking to all relevant groups)
- the venue for the lca05 conf had other parties interested in the venue
(and in fact, one possible set of dates was ruled out by being booked by
another group) and so confirmation ASAP was desirable so that we ended
up with the best possible venue.

The issue of only a small number of people making the decision (the LA
ctte) was raised as a concern - and it was pointed out that any decision
made previously was only done by a small group, so we weren't really
breaking with any tradition.

We also agreed that more involvement in the decision making process
would not be a bad thing - and ways of doing this (that are efficient,
workable and ensure the best possible outcome) should be followed up.

Post by Anthony Towns
that means entire states miss out on any idea what's going on with
Linux Australia.

Hopefully some updates posted to linux-aus help - otherwise we should
probably make a firmer effort to post summaries of meetings/happennings
to the list, esp in the case of minutes being restricted (for whatever
reason) or taking a bit longer than usual in coming.

Post by Anthony Towns
Well, that depends. Given the nominations we've had, to give as many
states a rep as possible, that'd mean we need an officer from Sydney,
Melbourne and Perth; and ordinary members from each of Adelaide, Brisbane
and Canberra. Electing, say, Anand or Jason King as an ordinary member
might be beneficial, but it'd come at the cost of an entire state's
involvement in LA.

I have tried to encourage communication both between LUGs and with LA
through the lug at lists.linux.org.au list, but little has happenned there
(i'm not really sure how to combat that). Suggestions welcome - please,
i'd love to have that list operating as a good communications forum
between the LUGS in each state (with each other) and with LA.

This then leaves the LA ctte open to be the best-people-for-the job and
not just someone from each state (who may do a worse job than one from
an already represented state).

Post by Anthony Towns

Post by David Lloyd
Besides, I'd prefer to elect a committee of professional NSW
people than a bunch of incompetent others...

I don't think any of the nominees are incompetent, so that doesn't sound
like a plausible alternative.

think of it as adequate versus brilliant and it sounds a bit bitter.

Post by Anthony Towns
Personally I expect people who've had a chat with Leon or Pia about
Linux Australia anytime in the past few months could give a much better
summary than that. Unfortunately, if you're not in Sydney or Perth,
you don't get much chance to do that.

I think you've just convinced me that regular summaries/newsletter type
things are a Real Good Idea(tm) to keep the communication levels up.

Post by Anthony Towns
Personally, I think as a first step we should increase the number of
ordinary ctte members to perhaps six or seven, so we don't have to make
choices like "drop Anand from the committee, or don't have any involvement
from one of ACT/South Australia/Queensland for a year".

There is a problem with larger cttes - it gets really hard to get them
all in the one place (for a phone conference, let alone a physical
meeting). Even with the number we have now, face-to-face meetings were
organised months and months in advance so that as many people as
possible would be able to make it.

Plus - although being on the committee is a great way to get recognition
("I'm on the committee of BLAH" sounds good), it's not the only one -
and in fact can be a rather poor one (nobody outside the ctte wants to
do anything in fear of not getting recognition). Maybe a LA "doers"
group is what's needed - with a decent amount of recognition and
publicity?

Post by Anthony Towns
It's easy to say "we don't want quotas!" and it makes sense in most cases,
but I don't think Linux Australia is one of them.

Disagree here, but we're allowed to - we're all free :)

thanks again for your valuable input,
--
Stewart Smith (stewart at linux.org.au)
Vice President, Linux Australia

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/attachments/20040108/4f9fb244/attachment.pgp

[Jeff Waugh]

<quote who="Stewart Smith">

Post by Stewart Smith
- we believed that the group of people who had the most familiarity with
the groups wanting to host lca05 was the LA committee (as we had been
talking to all relevant groups)
- the venue for the lca05 conf had other parties interested in the venue
(and in fact, one possible set of dates was ruled out by being booked by
another group) and so confirmation ASAP was desirable so that we ended
up with the best possible venue.

These are kind-of-almost-okay-fine reasons that make me feel only slightly
better about it, but I'll accept them. Hopefully that's lukewarm enough to
make my point. ;-)

Post by Stewart Smith
The issue of only a small number of people making the decision (the LA
ctte) was raised as a concern - and it was pointed out that any decision
made previously was only done by a small group, so we weren't really
breaking with any tradition.

You did. The crucial difference is that by doing it at LCA, all interested
parties were able to sit down and talk it out. Potential hosts, previous
hosts and at last year's at least, the committee. Sure, it reduces the lead
time organisers get for the event, but if an equivalent process with as much
involvement can be found (as you suggested in your next para), I would be
happy to support it. But I personally feel, particularly after being one of
the linux.conf.au organisers in 2001, that this is a very important... hm...
tradition or institution to keep alive.

Post by Stewart Smith
I think you've just convinced me that regular summaries/newsletter type
things are a Real Good Idea(tm) to keep the communication levels up.

Good, good, good. Enquiring minds want to know. And I want you guys to say
stuff so people stop assuming that I know everything through Pia. I don't.

- Jeff

[Jeff Waugh]

<quote who="Jeff Waugh">

But I personally feel, particularly after being one of the linux.conf.au
organisers in 2001, that this is a very important... hm... tradition or
institution to keep alive.

Oh, I should point out, that back in 2001, I was young and foolish enough to
believe that the current hosts should have the sole responsibility of
blessing the next hosts. Of course, back then LA was mostly irrelevant and
certainly not an organisation with community responsibility, and the only
previous host was Rusty (CALU). But yeah: I was totally wrong then, and I
don't think the same 'power' should be conferred to the LA committee now. :)

- Jeff

[Stewart Smith]

Post by Jeff Waugh
You did. The crucial difference is that by doing it at LCA, all interested
parties were able to sit down and talk it out. Potential hosts, previous
hosts and at last year's at least, the committee. Sure, it reduces the lead
time organisers get for the event, but if an equivalent process with as much
involvement can be found (as you suggested in your next para), I would be
happy to support it. But I personally feel, particularly after being one of
the linux.conf.au organisers in 2001, that this is a very important... hm...
tradition or institution to keep alive.

Point taken,

but there's also the argument (esp now) that organising the conf is
taking *more* than a year (there's already melb people starting to think
about, talk about and plan for 06).

Maybe a mailing list for past organisers could be useful for such
discussions (and seeking advice)?

Post by Jeff Waugh

Post by Stewart Smith
I think you've just convinced me that regular summaries/newsletter type
things are a Real Good Idea(tm) to keep the communication levels up.

Good, good, good. Enquiring minds want to know. And I want you guys to say
stuff so people stop assuming that I know everything through Pia. I don't.

hahaha - know that one :)

okay - sounds like more summaries and news items will be useful.

bug me (cron emails are fine) for them if they're too long in coming.
--
Stewart Smith (stewart at linux.org.au)
Vice President, Linux Australia

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/attachments/20040108/71b725d3/attachment.pgp

[Leon Brooks]

Post by Stewart Smith
there's also the argument (esp now) that organising the conf is
taking *more* than a year (there's already melb people starting to
think about, talk about and plan for 06).

Agree. And I think we should have a session (maybe Tuesday night?) for
interested parties to put their cases for running a conf to the
attending public.

We should also be thinking of things like: since the vast majority of
attendees will have to fly anyway, and since Qantas (for example) flies
internally and shares seats with external airlines, need we stick to a
capital city other than for large venues?

Post by Stewart Smith
Maybe a mailing list for past organisers could be useful for such
discussions (and seeking advice)?

lca-burnout at lists.linux.org.au?

Cheers; Leon

[Jeff Waugh]

<quote who="Leon Brooks">

Post by Leon Brooks
We should also be thinking of things like: since the vast majority of
attendees will have to fly anyway, and since Qantas (for example) flies
internally and shares seats with external airlines, need we stick to a
capital city other than for large venues?

ALICE SPRINGS! DUNEDIN!

Post by Leon Brooks

Post by Stewart Smith
Maybe a mailing list for past organisers could be useful for such
discussions (and seeking advice)?

lca-burnout at lists.linux.org.au?

Ha ha. Totally.

- Jeff

[Leon Brooks]

Post by Jeff Waugh
<quote who="Leon Brooks">

Post by Leon Brooks
We should also be thinking of things like: since the vast majority
of attendees will have to fly anyway, and since Qantas (for
example) flies internally and shares seats with external airlines,
need we stick to a capital city other than for large venues?

ALICE SPRINGS! DUNEDIN!

Post by Leon Brooks

Post by Stewart Smith
Maybe a mailing list for past organisers could be useful for such
discussions (and seeking advice)?

lca-burnout at lists.linux.org.au?

Ha ha. Totally.
- Jeff

[Leon Brooks]

Sorry about that last unedited post (butterbuttons!).

Post by Jeff Waugh
ALICE SPRINGS! DUNEDIN!

Cue Twilight Zone theme... I just used ASLUG and TasLUG as the examples
in another post...

Cheers; Leon

[Jeff Waugh]

<quote who="Leon Brooks">

Post by Leon Brooks

Post by Jeff Waugh
ALICE SPRINGS! DUNEDIN!

Cue Twilight Zone theme... I just used ASLUG and TasLUG as the examples
in another post...

Dunedin is not in Tasmania... It's... Even more islandy. :-)

- Jeff

[Anthony Towns]

Post by Stewart Smith
I have tried to encourage communication both between LUGs and with LA
through the lug at lists.linux.org.au list, but little has happenned there
(i'm not really sure how to combat that). Suggestions welcome -

Really? Here's mine: get people from each state on the ctte. :)

Being on a list is fine and dandy; being in the core group, which has
access to all the information, and actually makes the decisions is best.
Failing that, having as easy access to someone in that situation as
possible is best.

Post by Stewart Smith
This then leaves the LA ctte open to be the best-people-for-the job and
not just someone from each state (who may do a worse job than one from
an already represented state).

The best person to coordinate Linux Australia's activities with people
in Queensland is someone in Queensland.

Sure, being a braniac or a hyperactive go-getter is cool, but it doesn't
come close to the benefit of being on site.

Post by Stewart Smith

Post by Anthony Towns

Post by David Lloyd
Besides, I'd prefer to elect a committee of professional NSW
people than a bunch of incompetent others...

I don't think any of the nominees are incompetent, so that doesn't sound
like a plausible alternative.

think of it as adequate versus brilliant and it sounds a bit bitter.

Think of "being near the people in the communities we want to involve" as
just another attribute of a candidate, like "enthusiasm" or "hacker-cred".

(And anyway, LA's goal over the past few years has been to *reach*
adequate...)

Post by Stewart Smith
I think you've just convinced me that regular summaries/newsletter type
things are a Real Good Idea(tm) to keep the communication levels up.

PlanetLA?

Post by Stewart Smith

Post by Anthony Towns
Personally, I think as a first step we should increase the number of
ordinary ctte members to perhaps six or seven, so we don't have to make
choices like "drop Anand from the committee, or don't have any involvement
from one of ACT/South Australia/Queensland for a year".

There is a problem with larger cttes - it gets really hard to get them
all in the one place (for a phone conference, let alone a physical
meeting).

There's a problem with smaller cttes too: that there aren't enough
people to do the job. And really, if you've got a ctte of ten, with four
officers, and six ordinary members, it's probably no great loss if a couple
of meetings lose a couple of members.

Post by Stewart Smith
Plus - although being on the committee is a great way to get recognition
("I'm on the committee of BLAH" sounds good), it's not the only one -
and in fact can be a rather poor one (nobody outside the ctte wants to
do anything in fear of not getting recognition). Maybe a LA "doers"
group is what's needed - with a decent amount of recognition and
publicity?

Again, I don't really think "LA" is actually about "doing" things -- LA
doesn't "do" linux.conf.au, the LUGs do it, with LA's support. LA doesn't
do linmag.au, Kim does that with some help from LA. We've already got
groups for *doing* things -- AUUG chapters, LUGs, hacker organisations
like Gnome and Debian, industry groups, etc. What we don't have is a
group that keeps everyone in .au working together, and helps people in
one area repeat the successes of people in other areas.

BTW, how will voting (and proxy voting) be conducted? If people want
to vote for an Adelaide/Brisbane/Canberra mix for the ordinary members,
is there some way we can do that?

Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj at humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we can.
http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/attachments/20040109/efc07acf/attachment.pgp

[Jeff Waugh]

<quote who="Anthony Towns">

Post by Anthony Towns
Being on a list is fine and dandy; being in the core group, which has
access to all the information, and actually makes the decisions is best.
Failing that, having as easy access to someone in that situation as
possible is best.

...

Post by Anthony Towns
The best person to coordinate Linux Australia's activities with people in
Queensland is someone in Queensland.
Sure, being a braniac or a hyperactive go-getter is cool, but it doesn't
come close to the benefit of being on site.

That's why LUG involvement is so crucial. You can get the same benefit
through very close cooperation and communication with LUGs -> thus the

Post by Anthony Towns

Post by Stewart Smith
I think you've just convinced me that regular summaries/newsletter type
things are a Real Good Idea(tm) to keep the communication levels up.

PlanetLA?

I'm actually setting up an Australian FOSS hackers and contributors planet
site for LA, yes. :-)

- Jeff

[Leon Brooks]

Post by Jeff Waugh
<quote who="Anthony Towns">

Post by Anthony Towns
PlanetLA?

I'm actually setting up an Australian FOSS hackers and contributors
planet site for LA, yes. :-)

planet.linux.org.au is available. (-:

Cheers; Leon

[Jeff Waugh]

<quote who="Leon Brooks">

Post by Jeff Waugh
I'm actually setting up an Australian FOSS hackers and contributors
planet site for LA, yes. :-)

Was hoping to get it going during LCA -> I have an account on digital where
I can host it, but someone will need to do the apache foo for me. I'll see
you there, anyway. ;-)

- Jeff

[Anthony Towns]

Post by Jeff Waugh
<quote who="Anthony Towns">

Post by Anthony Towns
Being on a list is fine and dandy; being in the core group, which has
access to all the information, and actually makes the decisions is best.
Failing that, having as easy access to someone in that situation as
possible is best.
The best person to coordinate Linux Australia's activities with people in
Queensland is someone in Queensland.

That's why LUG involvement is so crucial. You can get the same benefit
through very close cooperation and communication with LUGs -> thus the

Well, no offense, but I really don't think that's the case, and I don't
really think people who are on the ctte, or members of SLUG are in a
great position to see the difference...

Post by Jeff Waugh

Post by Anthony Towns

Post by Stewart Smith
I think you've just convinced me that regular summaries/newsletter type
things are a Real Good Idea(tm) to keep the communication levels up.

PlanetLA?

I'm actually setting up an Australian FOSS hackers and contributors planet
site for LA, yes. :-)

Where's the best copy of spycyroll, anyway? The sourceforge page seem
not to have been updated for ages, but I thought both PlanetGnome and
PlanetDebian had made some interesting modifications (like the thumbnails,
if nothing else)...

(LUG aggregators are more interesting to me than an aggregator for all
of Australia)

Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj at humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we can.
http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/attachments/20040109/b0c9a944/attachment.pgp

[Jeff Waugh]

<quote who="Anthony Towns">

Post by Anthony Towns

Post by Jeff Waugh
That's why LUG involvement is so crucial. You can get the same benefit
through very close cooperation and communication with LUGs -> thus the

Well, no offense, but I really don't think that's the case, and I don't
really think people who are on the ctte, or members of SLUG are in a great
position to see the difference...

Why would SLUG people be any different? As I've indicated, SLUG doesn't have
any strong informational links with LA at all, particularly now that I've
resigned. SLUG committee members are, however, on the lug@ list. They have
as much and as little opportunity to get involved as everyone else.

Post by Anthony Towns
Where's the best copy of spycyroll, anyway? The sourceforge page seem not
to have been updated for ages, but I thought both PlanetGnome and
PlanetDebian had made some interesting modifications (like the thumbnails,
if nothing else)...

Currently in a private repo, shared patches and so on; we'll probably do a
release after linux.conf.au. The code is still quite messy and hard to work
with architecturally. But, it's doing the job. :-)

- Jeff

[Christopher Yeoh]

Post by Jeff Waugh

Post by Anthony Towns
position to see the difference...

Why would SLUG people be any different? As I've indicated, SLUG doesn't have
any strong informational links with LA at all, particularly now that I've
as much and as little opportunity to get involved as everyone else.

Are you really saying that LA committee members don't go to any SLUG
meetings or socialise with Linux people in NSW? Its the regular informal
chats which can be so useful. Mailing lists can be great, but face to
face communication fills some gaps - why else would you have things
like Debian conferences?

Besides, if the prevailing view from Queensland LA members (and I
really don't know if its, but I'm happy to trust Anthony here) is that
the lack of a local committee member has caused problems, then I think
its a view we should consider seriously.

I'm not saying that we need to put a quota requirement in the
constitution, just something we should all think about when choosing
who to vote for.

Chris

[Jeff Waugh]

<quote who="Christopher Yeoh">

Post by Christopher Yeoh

Post by Jeff Waugh
Why would SLUG people be any different? As I've indicated, SLUG doesn't
have any strong informational links with LA at all, particularly now
list. They have as much and as little opportunity to get involved as
everyone else.

Are you really saying that LA committee members don't go to any SLUG
meetings or socialise with Linux people in NSW? Its the regular informal
chats which can be so useful. Mailing lists can be great, but face to face
communication fills some gaps - why else would you have things like Debian
conferences?

The Sydney committee members: Pia Smith, Andrew Cowie and Anand Kumria were
not hugely regular attendees of SLUG meetings this year. Andrew, I would
have to say, has possibly been the most regular of the three (recently), or
maybe Anand.

I would have to say, knowing full well when Pia is not at home, that she has
had more valuable and productive contact with LUGs and LA members/interested
parties *outside* of Sydney. The lesser-impact contact with SLUG is likely
to be lack of interest from the SLUG committee, as well as reasons similar &
related to why I stepped down from the committee mid-term this year.

All in all, I think the Sydney reps have not had a huge impact on the Sydney
community in their roles as committee members.

Post by Christopher Yeoh
I'm not saying that we need to put a quota requirement in the
constitution, just something we should all think about when choosing who
to vote for.

Agree.

- Jeff

[Brad Hards]

Post by Christopher Yeoh
Are you really saying that LA committee members don't go to any SLUG
meetings or socialise with Linux people in NSW? Its the regular informal
chats which can be so useful. Mailing lists can be great, but face to
face communication fills some gaps - why else would you have things
like Debian conferences?

I don't recall seeing Hugh at a lot of CLUG meetings this year. I missed a few
meetings (including one where I just went to LUV instead :-), but I also
don't really recall Tridge talking about LA activities much.

*shrug*

Brad
- --
http://linux.conf.au - I'm registered. Are you?

[Stewart Smith]

Post by Brad Hards
I don't recall seeing Hugh at a lot of CLUG meetings this year. I missed a few
meetings (including one where I just went to LUV instead :-), but I also
don't really recall Tridge talking about LA activities much.

Hugh has this thing called a "family" - it requires some resources, and
is not a process that takes nicely to being niced down a few levels :)
That's probably why he's not been at CLUG as often as he'd probably like
- scheduling everything tends to get a bit hectic - esp when you want to
see your kids before they go to sleep (not that i have children - that i
know of at least :)
--
Stewart Smith <stewart at linux.org.au>
Linux Australia Inc
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/attachments/20040110/dec66bb0/attachment.pgp

[Jeff Waugh]

<quote who="Stewart Smith">

Post by Stewart Smith

Post by Brad Hards
I don't recall seeing Hugh at a lot of CLUG meetings this year. I missed
a few meetings (including one where I just went to LUV instead :-), but
I also don't really recall Tridge talking about LA activities much.

Hugh has this thing called a "family"

(I think Brad is trying to point out that having committee members nearby
isn't necessarily beneficial to LA's communication with local communities.)

- Jeff

[Stewart Smith]

Post by Jeff Waugh
(I think Brad is trying to point out that having committee members nearby
isn't necessarily beneficial to LA's communication with local communities.)

Yeah - but poking a bit of fun at Hugh for actually having a life is
always funny :)
--
Stewart Smith <stewart at linux.org.au>
Linux Australia Inc
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/attachments/20040110/9c7ac0aa/attachment.pgp

[Brad Hards]

Post by Stewart Smith
Hugh has this thing called a "family" - it requires some resources, and
is not a process that takes nicely to being niced down a few levels :)
That's probably why he's not been at CLUG as often as he'd probably like
- scheduling everything tends to get a bit hectic - esp when you want to
see your kids before they go to sleep (not that i have children - that i
know of at least :)

I think jdub summarised my intent - that local reps don't necessarily mean
solid communications. However I'd like to emphasise that my comments aren't
meant as a criticism of Hugh, Tridge or any other member of the committee.
Hey - I didn't volunteer to step into their shoes (and I don't have family
commitments), and I certainly didn't do anything that could be construed as
offering help! In fact, I probably created a lot of work they weren't
expecting.

I think the committee has done a good job of raising the profile of Linux
Australia (both within the FOSS community and more widely), and the sort of
issues that are being raised (communication, future direction,
responsibilities) are common to many organisations. Linux Australia is
reaching the level of maturity where these things matter, and that is
basically through the work of the committee.

Irrespective of the outcome of the SGM/AGM, I'd like to thank the committee
for their work in developing both the Linux Australia organisation, and in
supporting Linux in Australia.

Brad
- --
http://linux.conf.au - I'm registered. Are you?

[Leon Brooks]

Post by Brad Hards
Irrespective of the outcome of the SGM/AGM, I'd like to thank the
committee for their work in developing both the Linux Australia
organisation, and in supporting Linux in Australia.

Ta. Warm fuzzies seem to be almost extict at present. (-:

Cheers; Leon

[Andrew Cowie]

Post by Anthony Towns
get people from each state on the ctte. :)

While I disagree with AJ that state representation is *necessary* to the
LA Committee being effective, I certainly think it's a good idea.

I sit on a Canadian Board (Canada, with 10 provinces and 3 territories -
take that!) which has an Constitution that allows for 16 people (though
we typically have 12-15 at any given time).

We seek to recruit people to the Board so that collectively bring:

* Regional representation (BC, Alberta/Prairies, Ontario,
Quebec, Maritimes) as well as a few etrangiers for good measure.

* Demograhic balance (Youth, Women, Aboriginals)

* Industry representation (High Technology, Manufacturing,
Government, Pharmacuticals, etc)

* Specific skills (Communication, Strategic Planning, HR,
Finance)

* Specific stakeholder groups (Alumni, Our Program Staff,
Parents (of Alumni))

So, for example, I am able to hit

High Tech industry
Alumni
Foreigner (previously Maritime and Ontario before that)
Youth (well, not anymore)
Strategic Planning skill

The others all bring their own combinations. Collectively, we provide a
wide breadth of skill and experience that we can bring to bear on the
governance of the organization.

We can do this because we have so many seats on the board. [Well,
recruiting our own volunteers to be Directors helps too]

So, for Linux Australia, this whole thread has made me think to
recommend:

1) That we enlarge the Managing Committee

2) That we come up with a list of stakeholders/skills that we'd like to
see filled.

Candidates could indicate what skill sets (and geographies, etc) they
possess. Then the membership can decide when we vote.

It'll take a constitutional change (at least for #1).

AfC

[Jeff Waugh]

<quote who="Andrew Cowie">

Post by Andrew Cowie
1) That we enlarge the Managing Committee
2) That we come up with a list of stakeholders/skills that we'd like to
see filled.

I would like to see advisory sub-committees, such as a group of LUG leaders,
a group of business leaders (you could call opensource.org.au and the
proposed national business group an advisory sub-committee), government and
education experts, etc., etc. That allows us to have a great committee from
where ever, regional representation and special interest representation as
the community and committee sees fit. Plus, you don't have to have a huge,
unwieldy decision making core (the committee).

- Jeff

[Stewart Smith]

Post by Jeff Waugh
I would like to see advisory sub-committees, such as a group of LUG leaders,
a group of business leaders (you could call opensource.org.au and the
proposed national business group an advisory sub-committee), government and
education experts, etc., etc. That allows us to have a great committee from
where ever, regional representation and special interest representation as
the community and committee sees fit. Plus, you don't have to have a huge,
unwieldy decision making core (the committee).

Rock - this is what I was going to suggest when there was enough
interest and momentum for it to work (and people to do things). I think
we're actually getting there - and hopefully sometime this year it'll
actually start happenning, with people wanting to be part of these
advisoral sub-committees.
--
Stewart Smith <stewart at linux.org.au>
Linux Australia Inc
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/attachments/20040110/b42c14c9/attachment.pgp

[Anthony Towns]

Post by Stewart Smith

Post by Jeff Waugh
I would like to see advisory sub-committees, such as a group of LUG leaders,

Rock - this is what I was going to suggest when there was enough
interest and momentum for it to work (and people to do things). I think
we're actually getting there - and hopefully sometime this year it'll
actually start happenning, with people wanting to be part of these
advisoral sub-committees.

Personally, I'm not particularly interested in being involved in an
subctte that's just advisory. If you're going to do the work -- and
communication with local groups is *the* core task of the LA ctte IMO;
call it "enabling cooperation across Australia" if you want something that
sounds more visiony -- then you should be the one making the decisions,
and you should get the control.

Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj at humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we can.
http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/attachments/20040110/8d8a5a11/attachment.pgp

[Jeff Waugh]

<quote who="Anthony Towns">

Post by Anthony Towns
Personally, I'm not particularly interested in being involved in an
subctte that's just advisory. If you're going to do the work -- and
communication with local groups is *the* core task of the LA ctte IMO;
call it "enabling cooperation across Australia" if you want something that
sounds more visiony -- then you should be the one making the decisions,
and you should get the control.

*** We are all Linux Australia. *** The committee has the responsibility of
keeping the organisation viable, in control, acceptable to members, yada
yada yada. As a member - and in Linux Australia's case, even as a general
participant in the Australian Linux and Free Software community - you have a
stake in the organisation's operation and future.

If you haven't executed that opportunity/responsibility, tough biscuits! If,
however, the committee has obstructed our ability to contribute, then that's
an entirely different story, and we, as members, would have to rectify it.

- Jeff

[Stewart Smith]

Post by Anthony Towns
communication with local groups is *the* core task of the LA ctte IMO;

This is actually contrary to what we discussed in the ctte face2face
meeting in sydney where AfC did a wonderful job in helping us map out
what type of org we are so we were all on the same set of rails.

We decided that no matter what - we should facilitate a great linux
technical conference (LCA) and we would be failing in our roles if we
let anything jeopardize that (like spending all the money).

This, as i hope others will agree, should be the first priority - with
other things coming second. A lot of things want to be in that 2nd place
though :)

We're getting better :) and hey, it's great that such debate is alive
and well on the list.
--
Stewart Smith <stewart at linux.org.au>
Linux Australia Inc
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/attachments/20040110/d3c47e62/attachment.pgp

[Leon Brooks]

Post by Jeff Waugh
I would like to see advisory sub-committees, such as a group of LUG
leaders, a group of business leaders (you could call
opensource.org.au and the proposed national business group an
advisory sub-committee), government and education experts, etc., etc.
That allows us to have a great committee from where ever, regional
representation and special interest representation as the community
and committee sees fit. Plus, you don't have to have a huge, unwieldy
decision making core (the committee).

So would I. LA's rules seem kind of funny on that point. Sub-committees
can be set up by Committee, but the victims dragooned onto them seem to
become Clayton's Committee members by default, which could confuse
things a bit.

Cheers; Leon

[Leon Brooks]

Post by David Lloyd
Maybe we should include a position for the Christmas Islands, East
Timor and the Australian Anatarctic Territory?

Yes! Real penguins? Travel sponsored by LinuxBurg? (-:

Cheers; Leon

[Bret Busby]

Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 20:19:35 +1100
From: Stewart Smith <stewart at linux.org.au>
To: Anthony Towns <aj at azure.humbug.org.au>
Cc: Linux Australia <linux-aus at linux.org.au>
Subject: Re: [Linux-aus] State representation on the board

Post by Anthony Towns
communication with local groups is *the* core task of the LA ctte IMO;

This is actually contrary to what we discussed in the ctte face2face
meeting in sydney where AfC did a wonderful job in helping us map out
what type of org we are so we were all on the same set of rails.
We decided that no matter what - we should facilitate a great linux
technical conference (LCA) and we would be failing in our roles if we
let anything jeopardize that (like spending all the money).
This, as i hope others will agree, should be the first priority - with
other things coming second. A lot of things want to be in that 2nd place
though :)
We're getting better :) and hey, it's great that such debate is alive
and well on the list.

I understood that, a couple of years ago, I think, the issue was raised
that a committee for organising conferences, and, the LA committee, were
to remain two completely (as in activities) separate committees, and
that the conference organising committee was to solely deal with
organising conferences, and only that committee was to do that, and
that the LA committee's role was to deal with issues (apart from the
annual conference, apart from assistance, if requested) affecting the
Linux community across Australia.

I hope that I have put that clearly, as the separation of the roles of
the two committees.

Perhaps, someone could correct me, if I am wrong. I think the
discussions would be in the archives, from a year or a couple of years
ago.
--
Bret Busby
Armadale
West Australia
..............

"So once you do know what the question actually is,
you'll know what the answer means."
- Deep Thought,
Chapter 28 of
"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:
A Trilogy In Four Parts",
written by Douglas Adams,
published by Pan Books, 1992
....................................................

[Jeff Waugh]

<quote who="Bret Busby">

I hope that I have put that clearly, as the separation of the roles of the
two committees.
Perhaps, someone could correct me, if I am wrong. I think the discussions
would be in the archives, from a year or a couple of years ago.

That's pretty compatible with what Stewart said: LA facilitates the ability
to run the conference (and is likely to handle some sponsor communication
and financial/legal issues), while each delegated LCA team actually runs it.

Thanks for your recent positive contributions,

- Jeff

[Michael Davies]

<quote who="Pia Smith">

On that note, I'd like to nominate Michael Davies for an ordinary
member. > I'm not sure how much he will want _any_ community> responsibility next year after LCA :) but he is a shining example to the
community. He is organised, energetic, fair, politically correct and
a wonderful person. I'll ask whether you accept before putting
the nomination up ;) Michael?

Hi all,


I accept Pia's nomination. Thank you Pia for your confidence (pulled the
wool over your eyes :-)

About Michael Davies:


Michael would like to elected to Linux Australia as an ordinary committee
member. After the experience of leading the organising of Linux.Conf.Au
2004 Michael thinks he could help Linux Australia make it to the next
level. He is passionate about open-source and free software, and wants to
make a difference.

Michael has been part of the local Adelaide Linux community since about
Red Hat 5.0. Since that time he's been an active member of LinuxSA, the
local South Australian LUG, and a less active member of AUUG. Through a
number of installfests and more recently Linux.Conf.Au, Michael has shown
he can get things done. By day Michael works as a software engineer or a
large multi-national company, doing everything from embedded software
development to web applications, leading software teams, and managing
customers.

He thinks Linux Australia should be truely representative of LUGs all
around the country, and should strive to have good working relationships
with other groups such as AUUG, the ACS, and other such professional
associations. Michael feels sorry for the organisers of Linux.Conf.Au
2005 and wants to help ease their load.

Known affiliations and biases: LinuxSA and AUUG member, Linux,
open-source, free sofware and GNOME zealot :-)