- luv-main - luv.asn.au

The End of LUV, Inc? An Example of Federalism and Unitary Organisational Structures
by Lev Lafayette 03 Sep '13

03 Sep '13

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 years. 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 revolutionary. LUV, Inc.? You're a superstar. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_zLBsRYD8w -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GCertPM, MBA mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt

21 66

Re: Disk Washing
by Petros 03 Sep '13

03 Sep '13

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. http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9083718/Shuttle_i_Columbia_s_i_hard_… "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:-) Regards Peter

2 1

Re: The End of LUV, Inc? An Example of Federalism and Unitary Organisational Structures
by Petros 03 Sep '13

03 Sep '13

Hi Luv, to be honest I am sometimes surprised about arguments arising from formal/legal matters. 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 weeks time. 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. Regards Peter

5 9

Application form for membership of LUV
by Chris Samuel 02 Sep '13

02 Sep '13

Hi all, 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: http://luv.asn.au/node/8 APPENDIX 1 APPLICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP OF LINUX USERS OF VICTORIA, INC. I, _________________________________________________________________________, of _________________________________________________________________________ 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 ______________________________________________ Date -- Chris Samuel : http://www.csamuel.org/ : Melbourne, VIC

7 10

An alternative motion for consideration by LUV
by Daniel Jitnah 02 Sep '13

02 Sep '13

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. Motion: 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 Australia. 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 Linux community 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 . Examples are: Efficiencies gains can be made for example in shared hosting and system administration arrangements. LA can gain more influence in the Linux and FOSS related activities in Victoria. By having a representative on LA on the LUV Committee, exchange of information and coordination between the 2 organisations is significantly improved. 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 insurance. 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. Affiliation relationships 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. Cheers Daniel

6 5

Re: [luv-announce] Reminder: LUV AGM (3 Sept) and proxies and deadline
by Rohan McLeod 02 Sep '13

02 Sep '13

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 > > I, > _________________________________________________________________________, > > of > _________________________________________________________________________ > > being a member of > > Linux Users of Victoria, Inc. > > appoint > ____________________________________________________________________ > > of > _________________________________________________________________________ Les; I am another who can't make it to "1st Tue meetings due to a clash with the Existentialist Society; so; 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 second line commencing "of" ? thanks Rohan McLeod

7 13

Proxy submission and acknowledgement
by Les Kitchen 02 Sep '13

02 Sep '13

Hi LUV members, 1. As you certainly know, you can still lodge proxies until 7pm tonight. 2. For the proxies I've received so far, I've been sending individual confirmations to the members. I figured it would be comforting to get acknowledgement that your proxy had been received, and hadn't disappeared into the aether. I mention this because I probably won't have time to do this for any proxies I receive from here on in. So if you send your proxy now, you probably won't get any explicit acknowledgement before the AGM. It'll be open-loop. -- Smiles, Les (as LUV Sec.)

1 0

cheap server for backups
by James Harper 02 Sep '13

02 Sep '13

In the past I've been using HP servers with 3rd party components (disks/memory) as these are often well overpriced for the same components with a HP logo on them. The latest round of servers appear to be adopting some technologies from printers and complaining when non-HP components are installed. I need a tower with similar build quality to a HP that comes with all the caddies etc that is known to run Linux well (it will be a Bacula server). Any suggestions? Thanks James

3 2

Re: [luv-ctte] Some questions about proxies, etc.
by Daniel Jitnah 02 Sep '13

02 Sep '13

On Mon, 2013-09-02 at 00:15 +1000, Les Kitchen wrote: Hi Les, > > Oh, about your (Daniel's) LA-linkup resolution: I was going to > post to luv-main, but I'm too tired to start a new mail message, > so I'll just dump my thoughts here. I like the spirit of your > motion, but I'm just worried that it's not debugged yet, and we > won't be able to even do a proper code walk-through before > Tuesday. > > For example, how is the LA rep on the LUV committee chosen? By > LUV? Or by LA? In this proposal, all the details are of course the subject of discussion between interested parties and Member contribution will be welcome. The actual agreement if we get there will be agreed to by LA and LUV. Consistent with the spirit, I will suggest that the LA rep will be appointed by LA and up to them how they decide who that person may be. > > Even though I've been particular about getting the proxies right > (maybe overly so), in general I think the more things are left > to informal good sense the better. Codifying can be brittle. > > As I understand it, we already have at least one LA member on > the LUV committee. (Right, Russell?) And all this has reminded > me that I really should get around to joining LA myself. Well I am a Member of LA myself!! And I dont claim to represent LA on the Ctte. Russell was "elected" the Ctte in his own right, not as a representative of LA. I mean by a representative, someone authorised by the LA Council to speak on its behalf and report back to it. The LA rep position will be guaranteed irrespective of the outcome of the LUV Ctte election. Of course it's entirely possible for a future the LUV Ctte to think all this is crap, but then LA will be entitled to renege on any agreement that may been in place. > > I guess what I'm saying is that almost all we might want to do > in collaborating with LA we can do organically, without setting > up a lot of formal machinery. Absolutely agree here. The formality is only in a one time agreement, but how that plays itself out on a day to day basis can be as formal or informal as we like. > > Anyway, must sleep... > Already slept!! haha. Cheers Daniel. > -- Smiles, Les. > _______________________________________________ > luv-ctte mailing list > luv-ctte(a)luv.asn.au > http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-ctte

2 1

checking for stack corruption
by James Harper 02 Sep '13

02 Sep '13

I have a program that keeps crashing. gdb is next to useless as it gives a "generic error" enumerating threads most of the time, and even when it doesn't none of the backtraces make any sense (mostly 0's and random values). It's a heisenbug so the fault cannot be reproduced under valgrind. Is there any way I can do a reasonableness test on the stack from C/C++? At a minimum I think all I would need to do is get the return address and check that is within a certain range and not null's etc. Thanks James

3 2