I've found the discussions really useful, thanks all.
The issues around the rules from the state government and how they
change and what they require has made me reconsider my position on
disincorporation of LUV.
Previously I was neutral with a slight tendency against it but having
seen all the rules that LUV has to deal with and the fact there are
quite real penalties for not being in compliance with them then I see
that as quite a burden and liability for LUV and something we would
likely be better off without.
Linux Australia appears to be better resourced to deal with those issues
and there is an appeal to make that compliance somebody elses problem
and to let the local group just get on with doing Linux related things.
So I've changed my mind and will be voting yes for d14n tonight.
All the best,
Chris Samuel : http://www.csamuel.org/ : Melbourne, VIC
Quoting "Chris Samuel" <chris(a)csamuel.org>
> On 03/09/13 16:49, Petros wrote:
>> We want to present it to the AGM but if it does not get adopted it
>> isn't the end of it. We still exist, just with an outdated
>> constitution. As our president notes, it is still valid because it was
>> established before the new legislation went through (I believe him, I
>> did not check myself)
> The Consumer Affairs website says that if you have not notified them
> that you will be using your own locally determined rules by November 26th
> then the new model rules will apply to you whether you want them or not.
Only if you used the model rules before:
From 26 November 2013, the new rules will automatically apply to
incorporated associations currently using our model rules, unless they
notify us prior that they will create their own rules.
I don't know whether that is the case. Is LUV using model rules?
> One downside is that the new model rules require the register
> of members to include past members and the date of them leaving;
> they also require a minuted committee resolution to accept a new
> member into the association, which seems pretty clunky (and rules
> out mailing lists).
> There's nothing to stop LUV writing their own version of the
> model rules to suit it, but that would need an AGM/SGM to pass
> them (as was done by the Mt Burnett Observatory earlier this
Yes, that can include tweaks to registration. E.g. "probationary" via
e-mail, confirmed at a later state (e.g. committee meeting).
Melbourne - http://openquery.com/training/location/melbourne
- Thu 17 Oct + Fri 18 Oct MySQL/MariaDB Backup, Recovery and
Replication Workshop incl. Galera (AUD 975 + GST, PC lab)
Follow the links for more details and booking - if you have any
questions, please ask!
There is also a replication workshop scheduled in Auckland NZ for 24+25
October, that's just after the OSDC conference.
Other locations also have training scheduled, and there are additional
course modules - feel free to request and we'll take that into
consideration when scheduling upcoming days in your city!
Exec.Director @ Open Query (http://openquery.com) MariaDB/MySQL services
Sane business strategy explorations at http://upstarta.com.au
Personal blog at http://lentz.com.au/blog/
In a few weeks, Linux Users of Victoria, Inc., will be holding another
Annual General Meeting. But this one is somewhat different to others. At
this meeting, the very existence of LUV as an independent organisation may
come to an end. A motion is on the agenda that LUV dis-incorporates and
merges into Linux Australia, Inc., as a subcommittee of that group. It is
an issue which I personally have given some serious thought to over the
past several months, and more fleeting consideration over the past few
LUV is one of the the oldest (since 1993), most active (three speakers per
month), and largest (c1500 members) Linux organisations in the world. We
have been a mainstay behind such events as Software Freedom Day,
install-fests, regional mini-conferences, and of course, our regular
beginners workshops and technical talks. All of this, one hastens to add,
will not change at all with the proposed dis-incorporation.
What will change is that LUV will not be an independent organisation. Our
assets, such as they are, will be transferred to Linux Australia, in
accordance to the Act governing Incorporated Associations in Victoria. Our
income and expenditure will also be legally part of Linux Australia as
well, although that body has indicated that there is some room for
autonomy in those areas. At the very least, Linux events in Victoria that
require funding could go directly to the national body, rather than to the
state one which tends to have somewhat more meagre financial resources. An
example would be the establishment of more regional chapters.
We will be part of a national organisation and will be able to have more
direct input into country-wide affairs, including national policy, as they
are related to Linux. Our administrative overhead, which it is admitted is
not particularly onerous, should also decline. Plus, there are significant
economies of scale and of network scope in being part of a larger group.
One also hopes that we will see people who have hitherto been more
involved in Linux Australia from Victoria, participating in activities of
the Victorian subcommittee of LA.
Overall however, it must be noted that Linux Australia is a unitary body,
not a federal one. Members of the committee of Linux Australia are elected
from the membership as a whole, not as nominees from the respective
subcommittees and, as subcommittees only exist with the approval of the LA
committee, they could be disbanded in part or entirely, at any time. The
circumstances that this would arise would indeed be quite extraordinary,
but it is certainly something that must be considered.
I admit that I am much more in favour of bottom-up, federalist
organisations (e.g., a national committee from regional LUGs), rather than
those of the unitary model (e.g., a national organisation with local
subcommittees). I also acknowledge the substantial benefits that arise
through being part of a larger organisations. Whilst Linux Australia is a
product of its own history and perhaps does not represent what I consider
the most optimal organisational structure, especially for an interest
which is primarily the result of of the energy of local volunteer
activists. There is of course the possibility that LA may consider
changing its organisational structure over time.
Still, if this does mean the end of LUV, Inc. we can certainly be very
proud of what has been achieved under our name in the past twenty years.
LUV was there, from the very beginning of Linux, when a rag-tag team of
wild-eyed volunteer coders declared that they could take on the massive,
multi-billion dollar proprietary operating systems, by opening the code to
all, by making it free to modify and to distribute, and produce something
that was technically superior by any meaningful metric. That was truly
LUV, Inc.? You're a superstar.
Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GCertPM, MBA
mobile: 0432 255 208
RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines
Quoting "Steve Roylance" <roylance(a)corplink.com.au>
> when the Space Shuttle blew up 60km above Texas, over 98% of the data was
> recovered from the disks found in the debris.
"Everything but the drive's platters were virtually unusable"
so the important parts storing the data was still there:-)
But only one of three disks "survived":
"Two other hard drives aboard the Columbia were so severely damaged
that it was impossible to extract any usable data"
I also found interesting:
"Edwards said the Seagate hard drive -- which was about eight years
old in 2003 -- featured much greater fault tolerance and durability
than current hard drives of similar capacity."
Anyway, amusing story:-)
to be honest I am sometimes surprised about arguments arising from
I am a club committee member of a ski club (Melbourne Nordic) with an
ancient constitution, printed on a typewriter if I remember correctly.
A while ago some legal rules changed (don't ask me for the right term,
some Corporation Act or so) To satisfy these legal act some changes
are advisable so we may change our constitution to be on a safe side
if issues arise (e.g. related to liability, insurance etc)
There are some model rules, someone made the effort to tweak them that
they become our new constitution and we have an AGM about it in a few
Really, nobody wants to read this. If you are suffering from insomnia
I may sent the constitution to you. It is about the aim of the club,
how many people it needs to change a light bulb.. (well, if you read
this you're not asleep yet;-)
It does not change anything substantial - but still there is an
uneasiness in some.. what sinister motives could the committee have to
change the constitution?
There are none - we want to make it easy to keep the club running and
not being caught with an outdated constitution if there is an issue
and there is a lawyer looking into it (e.g. insurance companies have
plenty of them;-)
As far as I understand joining LA and running LUV as a regional
informal group is suggested to:
- Make life easier (one insurance, one committee in the country that has to
suffer the legal stuff is enough, one website for the list..)
- Everybody gets counted, LA has more weight advocating Open Source if
there are xy members more
It does not kill the list, the meetings don't change: They are the
heart of the LUV, I think.
There are small issues e.g. related to sponsoring but I do not see a
problem. I don't think there are "evil LA people" pocketing donations
earmarked for LUV.
I cannot see that the meetings get overrun by evil Sydneysiders
hell-bent to ruin them, I don't think the Queenslanders just wait for
the mailing lists moving to a LA server to shut them down.
Until now I did not care for the legal structure making up LUV at all,
and I don't know how many people really want to read constitutions
etc. Honestly, why bother?
So just go ahead, I think.
But if not - I am not that sad either. The legal structure is the last
thing I am worried about.
Under the rules of LUV the following form is what must be submitted
(and approved by the committee) for you to be a member of LUV and
thus eligible to vote in the AGM.
See section 4 "4. Membership, entry fees and subscription" for details.
The form is quoted from the LUV rules at:
APPLICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP OF LINUX USERS OF VICTORIA, INC.
desire to become a member of ______________________________________________.
In the event of my admission as a member, I agree to be bound by the rules
of the Association for the time being in force.
______________________________________________ Signature of Applicant
Chris Samuel : http://www.csamuel.org/ : Melbourne, VIC
Alternative motion to the LUV disincorporation motion.
Following my previous post, and as promised here is a proposed
alternative motion which I believe can bring long term benefit to LUV
Members, and the Linux and Open Source Community in Australia.
1. LUV reaffirms the role of Linux Australia (LA) as the national peak
body for all matters regarding Linux.
2. LUV, via its Committee, will explore ways to form a formal and
durable affiliation or other form of relationship with Linux Australia that
2.1 recognises a future role for each organisation in their own right
2.2 aims to bring efficiencies in each others operations
2.3 aims to better coordinate joint actions towards the promotion of Linux
3. To facilitate this relationship, LUV will invite a representative of
LA onto its Committee, and should LA accept this invitation, LUV
undertakes to amend its constitution as necessary at the earliest
opportunity so that a position for a LA representative is guaranteed on
the Committee as Ordinary Member, for the duration of the period of
affiliation or other form of relationship.
The above motion is motivated by the debate on the proposed
disincorporation of LUV motion that is intended to be put to a Members
vote on 3 September. It is an alternative motion which in my opinion can
bring long term benefits to LUV, LA and the Linux and FOSS community in
This motion can bring all the positives aimed for in the
disincorporation motion, without any of the negatives, while keeping LUV
intact and safeguarding all the gains made over the years of existence.
1. above, is a self explicit statement of recognition of the role of LA.
2. is the core of the motion and aims at building a better relationship
between LUV and LA with a view to delivering better outcomes to the
3. While this clause is not necessary, it however affirms the good faith
that LUV places in making the relationship with LA work.
There are benefits for BOTH LUV and LA if such a relationship can be
built and sustained .
Efficiencies gains can be made for example in shared hosting and system
LA can gain more influence in the Linux and FOSS related activities in
By having a representative on LA on the LUV Committee, exchange of
information and coordination between the 2 organisations is
By encouraging jointly organised activities, LA gets better exposure in
Victoria. Events can be labelled and promoted as being jointly organised
by LUV and LA.
This arrangement maintains access to Sponsorship and funding mechanism,
such as the Victorian Gov. Multimedia funding or other sources which are
only available to Victorian based entities, for activities organised by LUV.
One other major advantage is that this arrangement does not lead to the
situation where LA is burdened by its need to continuously administer
and support a LUV-Subcommittee. Should LA’s agenda change, it has a lot
more scope to reorganise itself without affecting the Sub-committee. It
also offers a clear exit strategy whereby if a time is reached when this
relation is deemed to have lost relevance or not be appropriate anymore,
it is a simple matter for LUV to disaffiliate amicably, and each
organisation parting their own way in their own directions. A
sub-committee arrangement does not allow this.
>From LA and LUV perspectives it provides both with a opportunity to
demonstrate that they are able to enter and sustain a mature and
effective partnership between 2 organisations. This may form a basis for
other organisations wishing to form similar relationships with LA and
LUV. Possible candidates could include for example other LUGS, OSIA
(Open Source Industry Australia), Free Software Melbourne, New Zealand
conterparts. Each organisation would be able to enter into a
relationships that best suit their circumstances.
The Insurance issue.
(This is in response to a post on the mailing list)
The issue at stake here is that of Volunteer Insurance cover. Volunteer
Insurance provides cover for Volunteers if the are injured while
involved as a Volunteer in an event organised by the organisation.
There is evidently an issue of Volunteer management associated, whereby
if properly managed, the risks can be greatly minimised. It should be
noted that in all probability the insurance cover would apply when the
Volunteer is injured if acting upon instructions given to him/her by LUV.
To give an example, I would imagine, for example if a volunteer is asked
to supervise a doorway at the back of a room where a speaker is giving a
talk. And that volunteer wishing to better see the speaker climbs on a
chair and falls down and breaks his/her ankle during the fall, its is
not clear that the volunteer insurance cover will apply. But if the
volunteer is assaulted by say an aggressive or intoxicated visitor, then
it likely would apply.
Its has also to be noted that Personal Liability insurance cover is
usually provided by other mechanisms and that is distinct to Volunteer
How can Volunteer Insurance Cover be provided.
In entering into a formal relationship with LA, it will be aimed to make
it part of the relationship that, when appropriate, the Volunteer
Insurance from LA can indeed be made available by for example formally
declaring the event as being a joint LA - LUV event, and whereby one of
the contribution from LA would be to extend the insurance cover. Or as
part of LA’s contribution, Volunteer management becomes the sole
responsibility of LA.
Infact this has already taken place in the past. During the Software
Freedom Day event of 2010 held at the State Library of Victoria, LA’s
volunteer insurance was made available to cover the volunteers.
While an affiliation relationship is the one I am advocating in
preference, I am however open to other forms, that saveguards LUV’s
status as an independent entity.
Affiliations are proven successful model of relationships. They exists
in the sporting world for example, where by clubs are affiliated to a
peak body representing their sport. They allow each organisation to
focus on what they do best and allow for better coordinated actions to
take place amongst them.
I hope I have helped you decide on your vote.
Les Kitchen wrote:
> Proxy form follows below. You can copy'n'paste it into your email.
> -- All the best, Les Kitchen (as LUV Secretary).
> APPENDIX 3
> FORM OF APPOINTMENT OF PROXY
> being a member of
> Linux Users of Victoria, Inc.
Les; I am another who can't make it to "1st Tue meetings due to a clash
with the Existentialist Society;
1/ is the proxy form asking for my address at the first line
commencing "of" ? ;
2/ if for example I was using Lev as my proxy, what should go at the
commencing "of" ?
thanks Rohan McLeod