An alternative motion for consideration by LUV
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
Daniel Jitnah <djitnah@greenwareit.com.au> wrote:
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.
Given this proposal, and the lack of time during which duly to consider all of the relevant issues before Tuesday, I think it would be best at least to defer the dis-incorporation. It should be noted that dis-incorporation is irrevocable, hence anyone who wishes to consider this or other alternatives has no choice but to vote against dis-incorporation on this occasion. this is what I propose to do, as a proxy vote. I have questions about the proxy voting form, all of which have been raised by others in the relevant mailing list thread already. I do not, of course, rule out voting for dis-incorporation in the future, in the event that it turns out to be preferable to all of the reasonable alternatives. I also support Daniel Jitnah's alternative motion unreservedly.
Apologies for top post but thank you Daniel, that's quite a bit to think about. Roger
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
_______________________________________________ luv-main mailing list luv-main@luv.asn.au http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main
Hi all, Daniel has not approached the LA council about this proposal, so LA does not have a position on this. I don't know if LAs insurance works like that. Although it may have worked that way several years ago it could have changed. Cheers, Bianca Linux Australia Council Member
[In reply to Bianca Gibson <bianca.rachel.gibson@gmail.com>:]
Daniel has not approached the LA council about this proposal, so LA does not have a position on this.
I don't know if LAs insurance works like that. Although it may have worked that way several years ago it could have changed. ...
Yeah. Thanks, Bianca. One thing that comes out of all this is that we need to be more conscious about collaborating with LA, whatever the formal arrangements might end up being. -- Smiles, Les.
On 1/09/13 4:16 PM, Daniel Jitnah wrote:
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.
A bit closer in some ways, but this is also the relationship between the Wireless Institute of Australia and radio clubs. Clubs are affiliated with the WIA, and can obtain public liability insurance through the WIA, so they're covered when running public events. I can't recall if there's still a requirement for a certain proportion of club members to be WIA members, there can also be charges for non WIA members. In short, affiliation is worth investigating, and there might be some details that could be thrashed out. It might even score LA more members. :) -- 73 de Tony VK3JED/VK3IRL http://vkradio.com
participants (6)
-
Bianca Gibson -
Daniel Jitnah -
Jason White -
Les Kitchen -
Roger -
Tony Langdon