On Wed, 4 Sep 2013, Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> wrote:
On 4/09/2013 4:54 PM, Lev Lafayette wrote:
b. The idea of following SLUG as a subcommittee of LA was first raised as a discussion item 2009 (I think), and raised on committee in May 2013.
Okay,w well, there doesn't seem to be any excuse for not involving the members much sooner then does it? Instead of springing this on the members in the last hour, so to speak.
http://etbe.coker.com.au/2013/09/04/ownership-of-a-club/ My impression of this matter was that it was a fairly boring procedural issue that wouldn't get much interest, as an aside I've written some of my thoughts about it at the above URL. If Daniel had debated the issue at LUV committee meetings then things would have been different, instead he decided to surprise us with a LibreOffice presentation with FUD.
c. When raised in committee this year there was a general sense of caution and a request to investigate the main issues (status of sponsors and mailing lists, benefits).
Obviously this is a more emotive topic and the "lip service" to the changes simply wasn't enough.
Sounds to me that the committee is pissed that this didn't get up.
Daniel is probably very happy with the result.
Please follow-ups to luv-talk, I think we've beaten this horse to death a couple times over on luv-main.
My view is that this topic deserves to be finalized right here, why should it be relegated to luv-talk where the topic never entered and where it could be buried because the committee doesn't want to resolve this fully?
I agree that this is a topic for luv-main. Also I think that more discussions which have been previously committee-only should be handled on luv-main. I don't believe that we can rely on people engaging in proper debate at LUV committee meetings on contentious issues, so if it's something that's going to involve a poll of the members I think we should just start by discussing it on luv-main. I wonder if we even need a private committee mailing list.
Now, with the 2975 LA members, I wonder how many are LUV members; I also wonder what /value/ these numbers give to the argument; is LUV /worth/ approx. 1/3 of LA in terms of representation? If so, should LUV be relegated to just a sub-committee? I think not. As I've said before, I want both organizations to continue strongly, working together for common goals, but to remain independent of each other from a governance perspective.
For reference I was in favor of having most of LA's core mission moved to a sub-committee and having an incorporated society as a parent body that does nothing other than government paperwork, insurance, etc. I'd like to have a sub-committee named "Linux Australia" that is dedicated to Linux advocacy and a parent body with a name such as "Software in the Public Interest Australia" that does paperwork. If I got what I wanted then LUV and LA would have equal standing as sub- committees.
Attacking Daniel for having an opinion doesn't sit well with me either. Daniel should be applauded for taking a stand; in fact, everyone whom considered the motion with such vigour should be applauded especially given for most, this was a total surprise and a last hour "effort" ... it certainly looks like the outcome doesn't suit the committee; but it may well suit the membership's view.
The only last hour part of it was when Daniel started making a big deal of it at the last hour. There is no discussion that we've had now which we couldn't have had in May. Daniel could have raised some objections then but decided not to. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/