Hi luv-main (or is that now la-luv-main?), Would someone who was there like to give the list a summary of what happened at tonight's AGM? I couldn't attend but I'm interested in the outcome. Cheers Dave
Hi Dave, On 3/09/2013 11:13 PM, Dave Hall wrote:
Hi luv-main (or is that now la-luv-main?),
Would someone who was there like to give the list a summary of what happened at tonight's AGM? I couldn't attend but I'm interested in the outcome.
The long and short of it, the motion to d14n failed, it required 75% of the vote and was nowhere near that level. It was indicated that the motion may be tried again annually, each year, until it is accepted ... but only time will tell. So LUV is still LUV as it was, exactly before the vote. Cheers A.
On 03/09/13 23:50, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
The long and short of it, the motion to d14n failed, it required 75% of the vote and was nowhere near that level.
To me the most disappointing part of the night was not that the motion failed or passed, but that out of 1359 members (from memory) only 30 people could be bothered to vote on whether or not LUV should survive or not. Either lots of people didn't see the notice, didn't feel there was sufficient information to decide or they just don't care about whether or not the organisation continues in its present form. I would hope it was the second reason, but I fear it is the last and part of what I feel to be an increase in apathy in society generally. All the best, Chris -- Chris Samuel : http://www.csamuel.org/ : Melbourne, VIC
Chris Samuel wrote:
................, but I fear it is the last and part of what I feel to be an increase in apathy in society generally. All the best, Chris Not sure this is a recent phenomenon; I seem to remember during the late sixties a student representative, standing for election on a platform of total apathy; the deal was if you voted form him he wouldn't bother you, or even call you apathetic @#$%^& 's ; from memory he did very well !
regards Rohan McLeod
Rohan McLeod <rhn@jeack.com.au> wrote:
Chris Samuel wrote:
................, but I fear it is the last and part of what I feel to be an increase in apathy in society generally. All the best, Chris Not sure this is a recent phenomenon; I seem to remember during the late sixties a student representative, standing for election on a platform of total apathy; the deal was if you voted for him he wouldn't bother you, or even call you apathetic @#$%^& 's ; from memory he did very well !
Chris's concern, as I read it, is that, nowadays, the apathetic (among the students in this case) wouldn't even bother to vote, much less to vote for the "apathy party" candidate.
On Wed, 4 Sep 2013, Chris Samuel <chris@csamuel.org> wrote:
Either lots of people didn't see the notice, didn't feel there was sufficient information to decide or they just don't care about whether or not the organisation continues in its present form.
I would hope it was the second reason, but I fear it is the last and part of what I feel to be an increase in apathy in society generally.
For a regular AGM I think in most cases it's OK to not vote. If you believe that all candidates for a position are willing and able to do a good job then it's OK to not vote for them. As the AGM has little in terms of Linux technical content it's understandable that people don't attend. For this motion in particular I also don't think it's a big deal when people choose not to vote. There was never going to be a significant change that impacts the members either way so it shouldn't be a big deal. The thing that disappointed me was the number of people who aren't involved in contributing to LUV who suddenly felt the need to "contribute" to this discussion. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On Tue, 3 Sep 2013, Dave Hall <dave.hall@skwashd.com> wrote:
Would someone who was there like to give the list a summary of what happened at tonight's AGM? I couldn't attend but I'm interested in the outcome.
The case for not merging with LA was based on the idea that a future LA committee might go crazy or merely have interests that don't coincide with those of LUV. That was apparently a convincing argument to some people as the motion was not carried. One of the problems with that idea is that AGM attendence is as low as 16 which isn't a statistically significant sampling of LUV members. So even excluding the possibility of 16 people with an agenda attending to take over there's a much better chance of a committee not representing the membership than there is with the much larger voting numbers for LA elections. It took over an hour of discussion and we didn't have time for lightning talks. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On 3/09/2013 11:50 PM, Russell Coker wrote:
On Tue, 3 Sep 2013, Dave Hall <dave.hall@skwashd.com> wrote:
Would someone who was there like to give the list a summary of what happened at tonight's AGM? I couldn't attend but I'm interested in the outcome.
The case for not merging with LA was based on the idea that a future LA committee might go crazy or merely have interests that don't coincide with those of LUV. That was apparently a convincing argument to some people as the motion was not carried.
There was more to it than that. The current incorporated LUV group is free to act as it has been to date, without any risk of a separate organization deciding LUV's fate, for whatever reason. It was also discussed that almost everything that may be achieved by becoming a sub-committee of LA, were things that could be done independently with or without the blessing and/or support of LA, now or at any time in the future as a self governing organization. The advantages of change did not outweigh the disadvantages (perceived or otherwise, both ways). Also, as LUV is today, we can apply for funds from LA for projects / causes. Perhaps that was the most significant outcome to come to light; we put a case for a project, LA agrees the cause is good and provides funds. If we don't get funds, then LUV is free to act as it does, according to the current rules. Cheers A.
On 4 September 2013 00:03, Andrew McGlashan < andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> wrote:
It was also discussed that almost everything that may be achieved by becoming a sub-committee of LA, were things that could be done independently with or without the blessing and/or support of LA, now or at any time in the future as a self governing organization.
We now have one year. What things can we do that are practical and feasible to achieve the discussed goals? -- Brian May <brian@microcomaustralia.com.au>
On 3 September 2013 23:50, Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au> wrote:
The case for not merging with LA was based on the idea that a future LA committee might go crazy or merely have interests that don't coincide with those of LUV. That was apparently a convincing argument to some people as the motion was not carried.
One of the problems with that idea is that AGM attendence is as low as 16 which isn't a statistically significant sampling of LUV members. So even excluding the possibility of 16 people with an agenda attending to take over there's a much better chance of a committee not representing the membership than there is with the much larger voting numbers for LA elections.
How many people submitted proxy votes? In the last LA election we had 111 people vote. The risk of an unrepresentative group is further minimised by LA elections being conducted on line. If a council went crazy members could call an SGM and vote to remove them.
On 4/09/2013 8:37 AM, Bianca Gibson wrote:
How many people submitted proxy votes?
There were 12, of which one was technically invalid, so only 11 could be counted -- it wasn't clear which one was invalid, but counting the full 12, it was 9 against and 3 for, so effectively 8 to 3 or 9 to 2 .... still overwhelming against.
If a council went crazy members could call an SGM and vote to remove them.
Frankly, I believe the /crazy/ factor was way over exaggerated by Russell (his analysis of why the motion failed). Cheers A.
On 4/09/2013 8:59 AM, Bianca Gibson wrote:
How did Daniel's motion go?
It wasn't prepared well enough to be acceptable; Daniel was confronted with this fact by Lev and Daniel agreed that his motion could not and should not proceed without further discussion over time by the group. In the fullness of time it may presented again. Cheers A.
On Wed, 4 Sep 2013, Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> wrote:
On 4/09/2013 8:37 AM, Bianca Gibson wrote:
How many people submitted proxy votes?
There were 12, of which one was technically invalid, so only 11 could be counted -- it wasn't clear which one was invalid, but counting the full 12, it was 9 against and 3 for, so effectively 8 to 3 or 9 to 2 .... still overwhelming against.
Yes, we had some weird discussions on the list about how merging with LA would destroy LUV with people neglecting the fact that it wouldn't make any noticable changes for the members. We even had one member quit in protest even though they hadn't had any significant involvement with LUV in the past.
If a council went crazy members could call an SGM and vote to remove them.
Frankly, I believe the /crazy/ factor was way over exaggerated by Russell (his analysis of why the motion failed).
Daniel made a big issue out of it in his talk, he even had a LibreOffice presentation about all the ways that LA might mess things up. Either Daniel totally misread the situation and spent most of his talking time on things that didn't convince anyone or the membership were convinced by the FUD. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On 4 September 2013 08:49, Andrew McGlashan < andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> wrote:
On 4/09/2013 8:37 AM, Bianca Gibson wrote:
How many people submitted proxy votes?
There were 12, of which one was technically invalid, so only 11 could be counted -- it wasn't clear which one was invalid, but counting the full 12, it was 9 against and 3 for, so effectively 8 to 3 or 9 to 2 .... still overwhelming against.
How many people turned up at the meeting? How did the vote go at the meeting? I am sure I heard last night, but forgotten now. The issue I have is that only a tiny percentage of the overall membership (based on subscribers to luv-announce) bothered to vote or turn up, so you can't really claim that the vote represents the views of the members. Also doesn't matter how good the arguments made at the meeting are, the proxy voters have already decided. So there is a need for high quality information to be distributed before the meeting (e.g. FAQ for or against the proposal). The mailing list is a poor way of distributing such information, on a controversial issue like this. Claims were made, from both sides, about what we would or wouldn't be able to do, should the motion be passed, that didn't always have solid foundation in evidence to back it up. So these claims came out as speculation, IMHO. If this issue comes up again next year, I think we really need to have a carefully researched document (e.g. a FAQ), which is checked by Linux Australia for correctness, and updated based on mailing list feedback. This needs to be produced sometime before the meeting, so we can be sure people are making decisions based on the correct information. -- Brian May <brian@microcomaustralia.com.au>
Brian May <brian@microcomaustralia.com.au> wrote:
If this issue comes up again next year, I think we really need to have a carefully researched document (e.g. a FAQ), which is checked by Linux Australia for correctness, and updated based on mailing list feedback. This needs to be produced sometime before the meeting, so we can be sure people are making decisions based on the correct information.
I hope the underlying concerns can be addressed well before next year's meeting. The failure of the motion yesterday gives Luv time for a proper review of the issues.
On Wed, September 4, 2013 9:30 am, Jason White wrote:
I hope the underlying concerns can be addressed well before next year's meeting.
The failure of the motion yesterday gives Luv time for a proper review of the issues.
Well, for some, whom seem hell bent on ensuring the the d14n takes place, there will be lots of convincing to do before d14n can be accepted. For most others whom are happy to keep LUV and LA as completely separate entities, well, all that will be needed is to /fix/ up the issues with the organization's current rules (modernize and review / adjust as required by the governing law) and also ensure that the rules of LUV reflect properly the actual practice ... ie how one becomes a member, how proxy voting must be handled and perhaps how future voting might take place via electronic means. All in all, the rules will need to go through the proper processes to be changed appropriately and I would expect that to require another formal meeting (or more) for discussion and acceptance. Cheers A.
On 4/09/13 9:30 AM, Jason White wrote:
Brian May <brian@microcomaustralia.com.au> wrote:
If this issue comes up again next year, I think we really need to have a carefully researched document (e.g. a FAQ), which is checked by Linux Australia for correctness, and updated based on mailing list feedback. This needs to be produced sometime before the meeting, so we can be sure people are making decisions based on the correct information. I hope the underlying concerns can be addressed well before next year's meeting.
The failure of the motion yesterday gives Luv time for a proper review of the issues. I didn't get a proxy vote i this time (me and paper based - or electronic emulations thereof) systems don't get along well, but I would have voted against the motion, mainly to (1) give more time to consider it fully, and (2) to explore the range of alternatives other than the two presented (i.e. disincorporation or keep going as we have been).
I'm not strongly in favour or against the motion, but would like to see the issues and alternatives explored more fully. Maybe by the next AGM, there will have been enough discussion and arguments presented to make a clearer, better informed decision. -- 73 de Tony VK3JED/VK3IRL http://vkradio.com
On Wed, September 4, 2013 9:25 am, Brian May wrote:
How many people turned up at the meeting? How did the vote go at the meeting? I am sure I heard last night, but forgotten now.
There was 18 votes cast at the meeting, plus several others who did not cast a vote (myself included). The votes cast at the meeting were slightly in favour of disincorporation (10 to 8), but the proxies were overwhelmingly against (3 to 6).
The issue I have is that only a tiny percentage of the overall membership (based on subscribers to luv-announce) bothered to vote or turn up, so you can't really claim that the vote represents the views of the members.
I suspect that the overwhelming majority are thoroughly indifferent, as indicated by the total vote.
If this issue comes up again next year, I think we really need to have a carefully researched document (e.g. a FAQ), which is checked by Linux Australia for correctness, and updated based on mailing list feedback. This needs to be produced sometime before the meeting, so we can be sure people are making decisions based on the correct information.
I'll bring this suggestion up to the committee. All the best, -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GCertPM, MBA mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
On Wed, September 4, 2013 9:25 am, Brian May wrote:
The issue I have is that only a tiny percentage of the overall membership (based on subscribers to luv-announce) bothered to vote or turn up, so you can't really claim that the vote represents the views of the members. I suspect that the overwhelming majority are thoroughly indifferent, as indicated by the total vote.
I probably missed this somewhere amongst all the noise, but how many members does LUV actually have on luv-announce? More facts & numbers are always handy in a debate. Personally, I'm glad LUV deferred the decision. Throwing in such a controversial (and effectively irreversible) issue to the vote, so close to the AGM, was always going to be a bad idea. George -- Email to luv-sub@tripleg.net.au will bounce. Email to george at the same domain will accept.
On 4/09/2013 10:25 AM, George Georgakis wrote:
I probably missed this somewhere amongst all the noise, but how many members does LUV actually have on luv-announce? More facts & numbers are always handy in a debate.
There are close to 1400 members of LUV. FWIW, this from LA website: "Linux Australia is the peak body for Linux User Groups (LUGs) around Australia, and as such represents aproximately 5000 Australian linux users and developers." That doesn't give any kind of membership number clarification. The 5,000 are represented how?
Personally, I'm glad LUV deferred the decision. Throwing in such a controversial (and effectively irreversible) issue to the vote, so close to the AGM, was always going to be a bad idea.
Personally, I very much like the idea of there being multiple independent groups. Being a member of LUV and MLUG, I'll probably also join LA, but I would like each group to work together co-cooperatively as I'm sure they already do (at least to some extent), but remain 100% their own group. Cheers A.
On 4 September 2013 10:51, Andrew McGlashan < andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> wrote:
On 4/09/2013 10:25 AM, George Georgakis wrote:
I probably missed this somewhere amongst all the noise, but how many members does LUV actually have on luv-announce? More facts & numbers are always handy in a debate.
There are close to 1400 members of LUV.
So the AGM had 18 people present plus maybe 12 proxies. 30 at most of 1400? What's the requirement for a quorum at the LUV AGM?
FWIW, this from LA website: "Linux Australia is the peak body for Linux User Groups (LUGs) around Australia, and as such represents aproximately 5000 Australian linux users and developers."
That doesn't give any kind of membership number clarification. The 5,000 are represented how?
Personally, I'm glad LUV deferred the decision. Throwing in such a controversial (and effectively irreversible) issue to the vote, so close to the AGM, was always going to be a bad idea.
Personally, I very much like the idea of there being multiple independent groups. Being a member of LUV and MLUG, I'll probably also join LA, but I would like each group to work together co-cooperatively as I'm sure they already do (at least to some extent), but remain 100% their own group.
Agreed. It seems similar to the way Museums Australia operates. Each state has a branch e.g. Museums Australia (Victoria) that works to facilitate and support the activities of its local members e.g. MV, RAAF Museum, Friends of the..., but also works in conjunction with the other state bodies and in turn the national group. -- Colin Fee tfeccles@gmail.com
In answer to a few questions. a. Quorum is five for all general meetings (Rule 13.2). 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. 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). Please follow-ups to luv-talk, I think we've beaten this horse to death a couple times over on luv-main. All the best, -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GCertPM, MBA mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
Hi, 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.
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.
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? You asked a question, the don't seem to have liked the result, now it is the member's fault? 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. 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. It was only on the 20th August ... when most members first got a message about this possible and quite significant change to LUV. It seems far more significant than the committee seems to believe. That is just 2 weeks for the membership to have discussions and make consideration; this is simply not long enough to deal with all the issues that were raised and then the committee expects a significant organization changing outcome! It seems to me that this wasn't thought through nearly enough before the proposal was brought forward and all this in the last hour for most members? I want LUV, LA and MLUG to all exist going forward, with no mergers of any kind that may limit members from having more choice and more avenues to be involved as each member sees fit. Swallowing up smaller organizations into one larger organization is not something that I would ever strive for and would likely never support. Cheers A.
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/
Quoting Russell Coker (russell@coker.com.au):
I liked: During the discussion we had some input from members who were typically lurkers who seemed to feel that their property rights towards LUV were being infringed, this annoys me. I think that if someone chooses not to be involved in running an organisation then they should choose not to concern themselves with the details of how the organisation is to be run. Reminds me of my oft-quoted bit in the Linux User Group HOWTO, which _Wired_ magazine and others have cited as one of wellsprings of the 'do-ocracy' school of thought, elsewhere: The reason I spoke of "key" volunteers, above, is because, inevitably, a very few people will do almost all of the needed work. It's just the way things go, in volunteer groups. An anecdote may help illustrate my point: Towards the end of my long tenure as editor and typesetter of San Francisco PC User Group's 40-page monthly magazine, I was repeatedly urged to make magazine management more "democratic". I finally replied to the club president, "See that guy over there? That's Ed, one of my editorial staff. Ed just proofread twelve articles for the current issue. So, I figure he gets twelve votes."[...] I hope, Russell, that you aren't miffed at _me_ concerning LUV. I carefully stayed out of the recent AGM vote and surrounding disputation for a number of reasons, geography not least among them. (I merely offered the lessons of SVLUG's experience so that maybe someone can benefit from them.) And, seriously, if anyone is able to contribute material for the LUG HOWTO's section 7.1 Organisational Legal Issues, covering for Australian LUGs' benefit the relevant details of incorporation and tax law, I would be delighted. And I am glad to include divergent opinions, as I did with original LUG HOWTO maintainer Kendall G. Clark's and my differing views on exactly these matters.
On 5 September 2013 09:40, Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
I liked:
During the discussion we had some input from members who were typically lurkers who seemed to feel that their property rights towards LUV were being infringed, this annoys me. I think that if someone chooses not to be involved in running an organisation then they should choose not to concern themselves with the details of how the organisation is to be run.
It may be obvious to some, however perhaps worth mentioning that you don't need to be on the committee in order to help LUV. Brian May
On Thu, 5 Sep 2013, Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
I hope, Russell, that you aren't miffed at me concerning LUV. I carefully stayed out of the recent AGM vote and surrounding disputation for a number of reasons, geography not least among them. (I merely offered the lessons of SVLUG's experience so that maybe someone can benefit from them.)
Rick you cited some legal cases in the discussion, looking up such legal records takes some work. Also you have a history of answering questions on the mailing list. So I don't have any problem with your actions in regard to this issue, it wouldn't have concerned me if you had cast a proxy vote even if it was against the motion. On Thu, 5 Sep 2013, Brian May <brian@microcomaustralia.com.au> wrote:
It may be obvious to some, however perhaps worth mentioning that you don't need to be on the committee in order to help LUV.
http://etbe.coker.com.au/2013/09/04/ownership-of-a-club/ In my speech in favor of the motion I described some ways that members can help out. Also the last and largest section of the above post describes ways that people can help out. As an aside, we had some discussion on this list about how people want regional meetings etc. Now that we've had the election and we can talk about finance for any meetings that are arranged such discussions seem to have gone quiet. I get the impression that the regional people in question are happy to ask us to arrange things for them, but not so willing to arrange a meeting - even though the effort of preparing lectures and attending the meeting to give them will probably be greater than that of the locals who arrange it. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Quoting Russell Coker (russell@coker.com.au):
Rick you cited some legal cases in the discussion, looking up such legal records takes some work. Also you have a history of answering questions on the mailing list. So I don't have any problem with your actions in regard to this issue, it wouldn't have concerned me if you had cast a proxy vote even if it was against the motion.
Well, thank you. I do value your good opinion, you know. Just to briefly reiterate a small passing point I made earlier: _If_ there might be any concern such as Daniel had, IMO a sufficient safeguard is to keep the LUG's key assets in private (and trusted) hands. Generally, a LUG's sole essential asset is ownership over its Internet domain. So, if MyLUG comes to regret its association several years back with BigEvil, Ltd. and has taken that one precaution, in my experience it then has all it needs to, if necessary, walk away from BigEvil, Ltd. and reformulate itself without the affiliation. Seems to me, if you do that, all the other angst and paranoia is no longer a concern. Just an idea.
On Thu, 5 Sep 2013, Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
Well, thank you. I do value your good opinion, you know.
Thanks.
Just to briefly reiterate a small passing point I made earlier: _If_ there might be any concern such as Daniel had, IMO a sufficient safeguard is to keep the LUG's key assets in private (and trusted) hands. Generally, a LUG's sole essential asset is ownership over its Internet domain.
So, if MyLUG comes to regret its association several years back with BigEvil, Ltd. and has taken that one precaution, in my experience it then has all it needs to, if necessary, walk away from BigEvil, Ltd. and reformulate itself without the affiliation.
Seems to me, if you do that, all the other angst and paranoia is no longer a concern. Just an idea.
That is one idea. However the debian.org domain is owned by SPI so when Debian went down that path of separating financial and technical issues they put the domain in the financial side. The tech contact for debian.org is within Debian but the admin contact is with SPI. But given the typical AGM attendance, a group of 16 people could stage a hostile take-over of LUV and do whatever they want with DNS names etc. The greater voting numbers for LA act as protection against such things. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On 5 September 2013 12:12, Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au> wrote:
But given the typical AGM attendance, a group of 16 people could stage a hostile take-over of LUV and do whatever they want with DNS names etc. The greater voting numbers for LA act as protection against such things.
If such a hostile take over occurred (regardless of if it is by some future LUV or some future LA), I would imagine somebody would register a new domain, setup new mailing lists, and LUV would continue. Sure, we probably will lose some members, new users probably will be confused, we might loose access to mailing list archives and existing subscriber lists (if we somehow manage to loose access to our servers too), however I imagine LUV would continue. -- Brian May <brian@microcomaustralia.com.au>
Quoting Brian May (brian@microcomaustralia.com.au):
If such a hostile take over occurred (regardless of if it is by some future LUV or some future LA), I would imagine somebody would register a new domain, setup new mailing lists, and LUV would continue.
Better than that: Given friendly parties' continuing to control the domain, there would be no need for replacement of anything essential. Even if (hypotehtically) the Web site and mailing lists were under the control of hostile parties, you folks _do_ perform offsite backups, right? Into the hands of friendly parties, right? If so, worst case, you deploy replacement servers, reimport data for the Web site and mailing lists, point new DNS to the new servers, and lose nothing. Certainly, if you have to walk away from mailing list archives and subscriber rosters, then you're doing backup wrong.
If LUV owns its domain name then successful takeover vote should also result in transfer of the domain name. However I find chances of anyone even remotely interested in hostile takeover of LUV negligible. Regards Slav
If such a hostile take over occurred (regardless of if it is by some future LUV or some future LA), I would imagine somebody would register a new domain, setup new mailing lists, and LUV would continue.
Better than that: Given friendly parties' continuing to control the domain, there would be no need for replacement of anything essential. "This e-mail and any attachments to it (the "Communication") is, unless otherwise stated, confidential, may contain copyright material and is for the use only of the intended recipient. If you receive the Communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete the Communication and the return e-mail, and do not read, copy, retransmit or otherwise deal with it. Any views expressed in the Communication are those of the individual sender only, unless expressly stated to be those of Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited ABN 11 005 357 522, or any of its related entities including ANZ Bank New Zealand Limited (together "ANZ"). ANZ does not accept liability in connection with the integrity of or errors in the Communication, computer virus, data corruption, interference or delay arising from or in respect of the Communication."
On 5/09/2013 1:00 PM, Pidgorny, Slav (GEUS) wrote:
If LUV owns its domain name then successful takeover vote should also result in transfer of the domain name. However I find chances of anyone even remotely interested in hostile takeover of LUV negligible.
I think that is the most FUD I've heard through all of this; that is, a hostile takeover. Besides the membership numbers of LA aren't that great, they are higher, but how many of those members are from Sydney LUG ? There could more easily be a Sydney vs Melbourne issue..... but that's probably a long shot too. Cheers A.
On Thu, 5 Sep 2013, Brian May <brian@microcomaustralia.com.au> wrote:
If such a hostile take over occurred (regardless of if it is by some future LUV or some future LA), I would imagine somebody would register a new domain, setup new mailing lists, and LUV would continue.
Yes. Even if the group was forked, having two LUGs in the same area wouldn't do any harm, the creation of MLUG didn't hurt LUV.
Sure, we probably will lose some members, new users probably will be confused, we might loose access to mailing list archives and existing subscriber lists (if we somehow manage to loose access to our servers too), however I imagine LUV would continue.
Control over servers is another difficult issue. I am not aware of us having any backups of our server. One thing I aim to do is to make multiple backups and have them stored by LUV committee members. It's one of those things that is a data point to oppose the claim that paperwork etc isn't taking time away from doing real work for LUV. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Quoting Russell Coker (russell@coker.com.au):
Control over servers is another difficult issue. I am not aware of us having any backups of our server. One thing I aim to do is to make multiple backups and have them stored by LUV committee members.
Seems to me like a higher priority than anything else.
On 5/09/2013 1:01 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Russell Coker (russell@coker.com.au):
Control over servers is another difficult issue. I am not aware of us having any backups of our server. One thing I aim to do is to make multiple backups and have them stored by LUV committee members.
Seems to me like a higher priority than anything else.
If the data isn't too great, then I am sure that I can volunteer to do remote rsnapshot backups; that will mean hourly (16 per day), daily, weekly, monthly and yearly backups. Cheers A.
Quoting Andrew McGlashan (andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au):
If the data isn't too great, then I am sure that I can volunteer to do remote rsnapshot backups; that will mean hourly (16 per day), daily, weekly, monthly and yearly backups.
I'm listadmin for (among other groups) BALUG in San Francisco, and recently heard to my shock that they are doing _no backups_. They're trusting to the hosting service, Dreamhost, which recently broke Pipermail archiving and hasn't fixed it. Here is some correspondence from me that includes some half-assed but sufficient cronjob scripts that you're welcome to borrow if you wish or cross-check against. In short: if you periodically get a mailing list's cumulative mbox and an ASCII dump of its roster including fullnames, you have captured all of the essentials, and the 2% you miss doesn't matter much. Larger point: the 98% job you actually do because it's not difficult beats the 100% job you keep meaning to do, every time. Quoting Michael Paoli (Michael.Paoli@cal.berkeley.edu):
Hopefully just a DreamHost SNAFU and they'll have it fixed uh, ... "soon enough". In the meantime the BALUG lists aren't working (can't access archives, and subscribe attempts fail, etc.). Was still working as of sometime on 2013-07-12, but apparently broken by sometime on 2013-07-14 (I noticed the archive URLs were returning HTTP 404 errors) and confirmed 2013-07-15 (email to lists bounce).
Thanks for the heads-up, and for the informational note on the BALUG front page. Reminds me, though: Do we keep offsite copies of the three cumulative mbox files, and of mailing list rosters? (There are better ways to capture GNU Mailman state, but those are the core of what is needed to, if necessary, replicate the mailing lists elsewhere with no lossage.) Here's a primitive shell script on lists.svlug.org as /etc/cron.weekly/mailman-rosters that mails an ASCII dump of that host's mailing lists' membership rosters to several people: #!/bin/sh # # mailman-rosters: Cron script to mail out current Mailman mailing list # rosters. # # Written by Rick Moen (rick@linuxmafia.com) # $Id: cron.weekly,v 1.02 2011/03/29 16:35:05 rick set -o errexit #aka "set -e": exit if any line returns non-true value set -o nounset #aka "set -u": exit upon finding an uninitialised variable test -x /usr/bin/mail || exit 0 test -x /var/local/mailman/bin/list_members || exit 0 # /var/local/mailman/bin/list_members -f jobs | mail -s "Jobs Roster as of $(date +%F)" rick@linuxmafia.com dmarti@zgp.org # /var/local/mailman/bin/list_members -f officers | mail -s "Officers Roster as of $(date +%F)" rick@linuxmafia.com dmarti@zgp.org # /var/local/mailman/bin/list_members -f smaug | mail -s "Smaug Roster as of $(date +%F)" rick@linuxmafia.com dmarti@zgp.org abcruzww@gmail.com # /var/local/mailman/bin/list_members -f svlug | mail -s "Svlug Roster as of $(date +%F)" rick@linuxmafia.com dmarti@zgp.org # /var/local/mailman/bin/list_members -f svlug-announce | mail -s "Svlug-announce Roster as of $(date +%F)" rick@linuxmafia.com dmarti@zgp.org # /var/local/mailman/bin/list_members -f volunteers | mail -s "Volunteers Roster as of $(date +%F)" rick@linuxmafia.com dmarti@zgp.org /var/local/mailman/bin/list_members -f web-team | mail -s "Web-Team Roster as of $(date +%F)" rick@linuxmafia.com dmarti@zgp.org Note that the -f flag on Mailman's bin/arch utility means provide fullname + e-mail address, one line per subscription, e.g., "Rick Moen" <rick@linuxmafia.com> And this is an entry in host linuxmafia.com's /etc/crontab file, where the script uses a special SSH keypair to do the job of backing up lists.svlug.org's Mailman mbox files to linuxmafia.com: 3 15 * * * root rsync -e "/usr/bin/ssh -i /root/.ssh/svlugbackup" -ax "lists.svlug.org:/var/local/mailman/archives/private/{jobs.mbox,officers.mbox,smaug.mbox,speakers.mbox,svlug-announce.mbox,svlug.mbox,volunteers.mbox,web-team.mbox}/" /usr/local/src/rickstuff/svlug/mboxes The point is not that either of those is particularly good, merely that they exist and do an essential job, week in and week out. Thus my question: Is anyone bothering to do that job? If not, that's putting a heck of a lot of trust into Dreamhost over the preservation and continuity of BALUG's history. SPoF.
Quoting Russell Coker (russell@coker.com.au):
But given the typical AGM attendance, a group of 16 people could stage a hostile take-over of LUV and do whatever they want with DNS names etc.
To repeat: A trusted private party/parties retaining ownershp of the Internet domain is/are in a position of ultimate control. The Registrant (owner) of a domain can override the Technical Contact or Administrative Contact, can replace undcomplaint master nameservers with different nameservers, and otherwise wields the Ultima Ratio Regum. That was my point.
On 5/09/13 10:57 AM, Russell Coker wrote:
As an aside, we had some discussion on this list about how people want regional meetings etc. Now that we've had the election and we can talk about finance for any meetings that are arranged such discussions seem to have gone quiet. I get the impression that the regional people in question are happy to ask us to arrange things for them, but not so willing to arrange a meeting - even though the effort of preparing lectures and attending the meeting to give them will probably be greater than that of the locals who arrange it.
Before we can do that, we have to find each other, and how many there are. If it's only a few people, coffee gatherings might be a better option. -- 73 de Tony VK3JED/VK3IRL http://vkradio.com
On 6 September 2013 15:11, Tony Langdon <vk3jed@gmail.com> wrote:
Before we can do that, we have to find each other, and how many there are. If it's only a few people, coffee gatherings might be a better option.
Make a page on the LUV wiki and ask people in areas that don't have any LUV events to edit it. If their location is not on the list add it. If it is on the list increment the number next to it. If they feel comfortable with it they can add some contact details so people in an area can easily get in touch. Cheers, Bianca
Quoting Russell Coker (russell@coker.com.au):
I liked:
During the discussion we had some input from members who were typically lurkers who seemed to feel that their property rights towards LUV were being infringed, this annoys me. I think that if someone chooses not to be involved in running an organisation then they should choose not to concern themselves with the details of how the organisation is to be run.
Interesting contrast to the federal election we're about to have... James
My 2c as a member who has attended most meetings over the past 2 years. I honestly don't get much time to read mailing lists. I'm a member of at least 10 and for me I feel my contribution to the groups I attend is my attendance. I turn up, I discuss, I participate. Personally, I think that is the reason LUV exists, so members can participate in events and discuss linux. It can easily go 2 months between reading mailing lists. The administration of the group is not my primary concern, and neither should it be. I'm just a Linux user in Victoria. With that said, I heard some rumblings about this the meeting before the last AGM. I passed it off as something I would have plenty of time to deal with. I was shocked, reading the mailing list on the tram on the way to the AGM that it was happening now! I didn't feel as a member that my interests had been considered nor that I'd had time to consider. All of my research on the issue was done on that tram trip and at the AGM. With that said, on the actual issue at hand, I felt that there was a cloudy exploration of the issues at hand by both sides, I don't feel like the for and against was really tabled. So here is what I heard: For (dissolution): Less administrative overheard Free insurance Against More people involved in making decisions (more decision making overhead, less agility) Financial overhead not an issue at present Uncertainty over sponsorship of Victorian centered organizations being willing to sponsor a national organization Personally, I am for MORE Linux groups. I attend mlug, Luv, Free software melbourne. It gives me choice, calendar flexibility and a bigger / broader social group. I think the amount of events will suffer if these groups get absorbed by a larger whole. -Noah On Friday, September 6, 2013, James Harper wrote:
Quoting Russell Coker (russell@coker.com.au <javascript:;>):
I liked:
During the discussion we had some input from members who were typically lurkers who seemed to feel that their property rights towards LUV were being infringed, this annoys me. I think that if someone chooses not to be involved in running an organisation then they should choose not to concern themselves with the details of how the organisation is to be run.
Interesting contrast to the federal election we're about to have...
James _______________________________________________ luv-main mailing list luv-main@luv.asn.au <javascript:;> http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main
On Wed, 4 Sep 2013 05:34:22 PM Andrew McGlashan wrote:
Sounds to me that the committee is pissed that this didn't get up.
Four people spoke on the motion, two for and two against. All were committee members (IIRC). I would suggest that we all leave this issue alone now and instead help to make LUV compliant with the current and new rules. All the best, Chris -- Chris Samuel : http://www.csamuel.org/ : Melbourne, VIC This email may come with a PGP signature as a file. Do not panic. For more info see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenPGP
Attendance at AGMs is a perennial issue for most associations. For me LUV meetings clash with meetings of an incorporated association that I'm president of so I'm a "list only" member, which I suspect is the case for a majority of the membership (maybe I'm wrong there), and the reason I submitted a proxy. That same association has 300 voting members and we're lucky if we can get 15 - 20 actually bodies at the AGM. The quorum (10% of the voting membership) is made up typically with proxies. The issue came as a surprise for me and none of the reasons given for the motion convinced me to even consider voting for it, mind you the case against was equally non-compelling. This captures the nub of the issue for me at moment, quotation an earlier message in this thread: "If this issue comes up again next year, I think we really need to have a carefully researched document (e.g. a FAQ), which is checked by Linux Australia for correctness, and updated based on mailing list feedback. This needs to be produced sometime before the meeting, so we can be sure people are making decisions based on the correct information." I would add that we need to see a balanced and reasoned argument for both sides. -- Colin Fee tfeccles@gmail.com
On Wed, 4 Sep 2013, George Georgakis <luv-sub@tripleg.net.au> wrote:
Personally, I'm glad LUV deferred the decision. Throwing in such a controversial (and effectively irreversible) issue to the vote, so close to the AGM, was always going to be a bad idea.
The issue was discussed in committee meetings months before it happened. Daniel didn't indicate such a great opposition to the idea in committee and didn't give much in the way of reasons for not doing it. We could have had a discussion about this months earlier, Daniel could have started such a discussion if he wanted to. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On Wed, 4 Sep 2013, Brian May <brian@microcomaustralia.com.au> wrote:
The issue I have is that only a tiny percentage of the overall membership (based on subscribers to luv-announce) bothered to vote or turn up, so you can't really claim that the vote represents the views of the members.
Traditionally the AGM gets a significantly smaller number of members attending than any other meeting. This AGM had a 50% greater attendance than last year in spite of the fact that it had about hald the attendance of a typical meeting. Most members don't want to be involved in running the organisation, they just want to attend when there's a lecture on. To some extent that is OK, if you approve of every candidate who is nominated for committee then it's OK to not bother voting IMHO.
Also doesn't matter how good the arguments made at the meeting are, the proxy voters have already decided. So there is a need for high quality information to be distributed before the meeting (e.g. FAQ for or against the proposal). The mailing list is a poor way of distributing such information, on a controversial issue like this.
No there were enough people attending the meeting to carry the motion if the vast majority of them were in favor. Daniel, could you please publish the LibreOffice presentation you used at the meeting? -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Russell Coker wrote:
On Tue, 3 Sep 2013, Dave Hall <dave.hall@skwashd.com> wrote:
Would someone who was there like to give the list a summary of what happened at tonight's AGM? I couldn't attend but I'm interested in the outcome. The case for not merging with LA was based on the idea that a future LA committee might go crazy or merely have interests that don't coincide with those of LUV. That was apparently a convincing argument to some people as the motion was not carried.
One of the problems with that idea is that AGM attendence is as low as 16 which isn't a statistically significant sampling of LUV members.
As some one who voted in favour of the motion, or would have if the proxy voting system was clear; can I please ask the committee to sort the rules situation consistent with proxy voting. It is apparent that attendance at monthly meetings(and thus AGM's) can never be more than a small percentage of say luv-man, luv-talk; luv-announce for reasons of remoteness or in my case existing commitments. 'A' set of steps would seem to be : 1/ Preliminary definition of the set of people who can be considered legitimate members of LUV, under the existing rules. 2/ Drawing up a new set of rules consistent with the new Victorian legislation; which set of rules would include - a new definition enlarging the set of people who are to be considered members of LUV; to include anyone who has ever been on a LUV list and hasn't unsubscribed ! (my suggestion) - a new system which maintains a current list of members of LUV - a new proxy system which is as simple and broad as possible; and has been fully debugged. 3/ Ratification of the new set of rules by 1/ above and publication to every one included in 2/ above. 4/ Such publication to make it clear that anyone who doesn't opt-out is now a member of LUV just a suggestion , regards Rohan McLeod
On 04/09/13 09:27, Rohan McLeod wrote:
It is apparent that attendance at monthly meetings(and thus AGM's) can never be more than a small percentage of say luv-man, luv-talk; luv-announce for reasons of remoteness or in my case existing commitments.
This is something that the new model rules will help with as it will permit an AGM to be videoconferenced. Regarding changing the model rules, Lev mentioned to me last night that involves increased cost as the rules have to go past the state government lawyers and if they don't like your changes you have to fix them, and resubmit and pay again. My personal feeling is that getting MemberDB modified to meet the new requirements (including keeping a list of old members and the date they left) and then populating luv-announce from that would be sufficient. All the best, Chris -- Chris Samuel : http://www.csamuel.org/ : Melbourne, VIC
participants (16)
-
Andrew McGlashan -
Bianca Gibson -
Brian May -
Chris Samuel -
Colin Fee -
Dave Hall -
George Georgakis -
James Harper -
Jason White -
Lev Lafayette -
Noah O'Donoghue -
Pidgorny, Slav (GEUS) -
Rick Moen -
Rohan McLeod -
Russell Coker -
Tony Langdon