The End of LUV, Inc? An Example of Federalism and Unitary Organisational Structures
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
On Sat, 24 Aug 2013, "Lev Lafayette" <lev@levlafayette.com> wrote:
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
If LUV is one of the greatest LUGs in the world then I don't think that LUGs are going so well. Does anyone keep stats on how LUV attendance has changed over the years? I get the impression that we aren't doing nearly as well as we used to. Some people claim that it's the availability of support on the Internet that has decreased the attendance, but the number of people using Linux has significantly increased too. We are now using Meetup to advertise LUV meetings which has apparently done some good. What else can we do to get more members and better attendance at the meetings? -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On Sat, August 24, 2013 11:58 pm, Russell Coker wrote:
If LUV is one of the greatest LUGs in the world then I don't think that LUGs are going so well.
They're not and haven't been for several years. e.g., http://archive09.linux.com/feature/118046 Most of the "it's new (or GNU), it's exciting, it's Linux" fever-pitch has died away as Linux is the norm in a lot of areas. LUGs may be trundling along with significantly lower numbers, but conferences keep on getting bigger.
Does anyone keep stats on how LUV attendance has changed over the years?
As with almost every meeting I attend I do a quick scan. Our numbers this year have improved slightly, both at LUV-main and LUV-beginners, around 40 for the former and 20 for the latter. I understand this is around double what our friends in Sydney get.
I get the impression that we aren't doing nearly as well as we used to.
That impression wouldn't be quite right, although "used to" is an ambiguous period in history. Are you talking two, five, or ten years in the past?
Some people claim that it's the availability of support on the Internet that has decreased the attendance, but the number of people using Linux has significantly increased too.
Also, installing Linux doesn't require a dedicated geek to help you out if you're a newbie. :) -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GCertPM, MBA mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
I don't really have an opinion on the proposed merger, but I for one can say that unfortunately I've never been to a LUV meeting, despite being on the list of many years, because I simply can't make Tuesdays (I have a very long standing prior engagement every Tuesday). I guess the fact that I'm no where near the city doesn't help either, but that would be no such an impediment (perhaps not every month though). Having said all of that, I've been following these news lists for many years now (as I said earlier) and would really miss the lively discussions that go on here (even if mostly voyeuristic on my behalf). I'd be interested to know how many others on these lists are in a similar situation. Peter. On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 11:58:08 PM Russell Coker wrote:
On Sat, 24 Aug 2013, "Lev Lafayette" <lev@levlafayette.com> wrote:
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
If LUV is one of the greatest LUGs in the world then I don't think that LUGs are going so well.
Does anyone keep stats on how LUV attendance has changed over the years? I get the impression that we aren't doing nearly as well as we used to. Some people claim that it's the availability of support on the Internet that has decreased the attendance, but the number of people using Linux has significantly increased too.
We are now using Meetup to advertise LUV meetings which has apparently done some good.
What else can we do to get more members and better attendance at the meetings?
-- Director InfoTeq Pty Ltd 0412 174 230 03 9017 2707
On 25/08/13 12:21 PM, Peter Nunn wrote:
I don't really have an opinion on the proposed merger, but I for one can say that unfortunately I've never been to a LUV meeting, despite being on the list of many years, because I simply can't make Tuesdays (I have a very long standing prior engagement every Tuesday). I guess the fact that I'm no where near the city doesn't help either, but that would be no such an impediment (perhaps not every month though). Having said all of that, I've been following these news lists for many years now (as I said earlier) and would really miss the lively discussions that go on here (even if mostly voyeuristic on my behalf).
I'd be interested to know how many others on these lists are in a similar situation.
I'm in the same boat. Weeknights have always been a bit difficult, and for the last 3 years, ANY evening has been an issue, due to travel time (being 2 hours out of Melbourne). My interaction with LUV has been purely through the mailing list. I do read most posts on here and the luv-talk list, except when time is tight. I would miss the lists as well. -- 73 de Tony VK3JED/VK3IRL http://vkradio.com
On Sun, 2013-08-25 at 12:21 +1000, Peter Nunn wrote:
I don't really have an opinion on the proposed merger, but I for one can say that unfortunately I've never been to a LUV meeting, despite being on the list of many years, because I simply can't make Tuesdays (I have a very long standing prior engagement every Tuesday). I guess the fact that I'm no where near the city doesn't help either, but that would be no such an impediment (perhaps not every month though). Having said all of that, I've been following these news lists for many years now (as I said earlier) and would really miss the lively discussions that go on here (even if mostly voyeuristic on my behalf).
I'd be interested to know how many others on these lists are in a similar situation.
Peter.
Me too Peter. I have never been to a meeting and never will. I see 2 different groups within LUV. Those that live in Victoria and rely on the internet to participate and. Those that live in Melbourne and can attend meeting held there. Is the person/people pushing to kill off LUV basing that decision on meeting attendance? Because as far as I'm concerned the meetings are a Melbourne thing, not Victorian. Shane, Linux user since the 90s and member of LUV for a lot of those years.
On Sun, August 25, 2013 1:47 pm, Shane Deering wrote:
Is the person/people pushing to kill off LUV basing that decision on meeting attendance?
No. It has nothing to do with meeting attendance. It it about being a subcommittee of a national organisation.
Because as far as I'm concerned the meetings are a Melbourne thing, not Victorian.
We're always been prepared to organised regional conferences and meetings to kickstart regional groups. That is why there are several regional chapters; perhaps not as active as they could be, but ultimately it depends on active locals. 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 Sun, 25 Aug 2013, "Lev Lafayette" <lev@levlafayette.com> wrote:
Because as far as I'm concerned the meetings are a Melbourne thing, not Victorian.
We're always been prepared to organised regional conferences and meetings to kickstart regional groups.
That is why there are several regional chapters; perhaps not as active as they could be, but ultimately it depends on active locals.
I'd like to see more regional meetings. I think it would be good to use some of the money we save from duplicate insurance and some LA funds to arrange more mini-confs in regional areas. We have a bunch of LUV members who do some interesting things with Linux that can be the subject of a presentation. If LUV was to cover part of the travel costs of members who give talks as well as subsidising BBQ food then I think we could run some effective Saturday mini-confs in regional areas and inspire interest and ongoing activity among the locals. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On Sun, 25 Aug 2013, Shane Deering <spdeering@dodo.com.au> wrote:
Is the person/people pushing to kill off LUV basing that decision on meeting attendance? Because as far as I'm concerned the meetings are a Melbourne thing, not Victorian.
No-one wants to kill anything off. We will have the same meetings in the same location and run the same mailing lists. What we want to do is to avoid duplication of effort and expense between LUV and LA and allow LUV volunteers to concentrate their efforts on unique local tasks that will provide a direct benefit to Linux users in Victoria. A number of people who haven't previously been involved in running LUV have opposed this change. They could volunteer to help run LUV. They could also volunteer to donate some extra funds to cover the duplicate insurance and to extend the current duplicate insurance to cover volunteers (as opposed to getting ALL insurance including volunteers for free from LA). I'd rather save the money that's being spent on duplicate insurance and other needless things and spend it on regional mini-confs and other things that will provide a direct benefit to Linux users in Victoria. I'd also like to not have the LUV committee bothering about administrative issues and instead focussing on how to provide services to the Linux community. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On 25/08/13 15:47, Russell Coker wrote:
On Sun, 25 Aug 2013, Shane Deering <spdeering@dodo.com.au> wrote:
Is the person/people pushing to kill off LUV basing that decision on meeting attendance? Because as far as I'm concerned the meetings are a Melbourne thing, not Victorian. No-one wants to kill anything off.
We will have the same meetings in the same location and run the same mailing lists.
What we want to do is to avoid duplication of effort and expense between LUV and LA and allow LUV volunteers to concentrate their efforts on unique local tasks that will provide a direct benefit to Linux users in Victoria.
Notice that we could also achieve the same outcome by entering into a discussion in our own right with LA with a view exploring how we could share resources and not duplicate efforts. The desire to be more effective and efficient is a different issue, as the actual existence of an organisation. It does not require LUV to dis-incorporate for it to be more efficient. !!! More-ever, fundamentally, the notion that LUV will still exist after dis-incorporation is untrue. The activities that are currently carried out by LUV may still carry on, organised by a branch of LA. But there will be no LUV. Its the fundamental definition of LUV's existence that it is an incorporated body. The very existence of a body should be not put into question as a consequence of its desire to be more efficient, specially when its has not been demonstrated that it is unable to survive as it is. Cheers Daniel.
On Sun, 25 Aug 2013, Daniel Jitnah <djitnah@greenwareit.com.au> wrote:
On 25/08/13 15:47, Russell Coker wrote:
On Sun, 25 Aug 2013, Shane Deering <spdeering@dodo.com.au> wrote:
Is the person/people pushing to kill off LUV basing that decision on meeting attendance? Because as far as I'm concerned the meetings are a Melbourne thing, not Victorian.
No-one wants to kill anything off.
We will have the same meetings in the same location and run the same mailing lists.
What we want to do is to avoid duplication of effort and expense between LUV and LA and allow LUV volunteers to concentrate their efforts on unique local tasks that will provide a direct benefit to Linux users in Victoria.
Notice that we could also achieve the same outcome by entering into a discussion in our own right with LA with a view exploring how we could share resources and not duplicate efforts.
There is no possibility for avoiding duplicate insurance without becoming an LA subcommittee.
The desire to be more effective and efficient is a different issue, as the actual existence of an organisation. It does not require LUV to dis-incorporate for it to be more efficient. !!!
More-ever, fundamentally, the notion that LUV will still exist after dis-incorporation is untrue. The activities that are currently carried out by LUV may still carry on, organised by a branch of LA. But there will be no LUV. Its the fundamental definition of LUV's existence that it is an incorporated body.
Most members of LUV would disagree with that. I expect that most members consider the existance of LUV to be determined by the mailing lists running and the meetings being held.
The very existence of a body should be not put into question as a consequence of its desire to be more efficient, specially when its has not been demonstrated that it is unable to survive as it is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniting_church Now you're just being silly. There is a lot of precedent for non-profit organisations with similar goals merging for mutual benefit. The above URL gives one example. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On 25/08/13 6:06 PM, Russell Coker wrote:
There is no possibility for avoiding duplicate insurance without becoming an LA subcommittee. Insurance and resource sharing are certainly two valid reasons to explore the disincorporation/merger proposal. I have an open mind on this, but the arguments have swung my thoughts more towards being in favour of the proposal. Most members of LUV would disagree with that. I expect that most members consider the existance of LUV to be determined by the mailing lists running and the meetings being held. I'd certainly like to see the "LUV" name go on in some fashion, even if not officially (legally) in existence.
-- 73 de Tony VK3JED/VK3IRL http://vkradio.com
On Sun, August 25, 2013 6:53 pm, Tony Langdon wrote:
Most members of LUV would disagree with that. I expect that most members consider the existance of LUV to be determined by the mailing lists running and the meetings being held. I'd certainly like to see the "LUV" name go on in some fashion, even if not officially (legally) in existence.
Just as a point of clarification, disincorporation would mean that "LUV, Inc." would not exist, i.e., a separate legal entity. LUV, as a subcommittee of Linux Australia, Inc., however would still exist - as would our website, our mailing lists, etc. Just as the case is with SLUG, who has gone through the same process. Technically, it does mean that Linux Australia *could* shut LUV down, but realistically I don't think there's much chance of that happening. All the best, -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GCertPM, MBA mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
Just as a point of clarification, disincorporation would mean that "LUV, Inc." would not exist, i.e., a separate legal entity.
Does not existing mean that luv has to surrender the luv.asn.au domain name and move to a subdomain under the parent body? Google comes up with http://www.auda.org.au/policies/auda-2012-04/ ELIGIBILITY AND ALLOCATION RULES FOR ASN.AU The asn.au 2LD is for non-commercial organisations. The following rules are to be read in conjunction with the Eligibility and Allocation Rules for All Open 2LDs, contained in Schedule A of this document. 1. To be eligible for a domain name in the asn.au 2LD, registrants must be non-commercial organisations as follows: a) an association incorporated in any Australian State or Territory; or b) a political party registered with the Australian Electoral Commission; or c) a trade union or other organisation registered under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009; or d) a sporting or special interest club operating in Australia; or e) a charity operating in Australia, as defined in the registrant's constitution or other documents of incorporation; or f) a non-profit organisation operating in Australia, as defined in the registrant's constitution or other documents of incorporation. James
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 7:52 AM, James Harper <james.harper@bendigoit.com.au> wrote:
Just as a point of clarification, disincorporation would mean that "LUV, Inc." would not exist, i.e., a separate legal entity.
Does not existing mean that luv has to surrender the luv.asn.au domain name and move to a subdomain under the parent body?
Google comes up with http://www.auda.org.au/policies/auda-2012-04/
ELIGIBILITY AND ALLOCATION RULES FOR ASN.AU
The asn.au 2LD is for non-commercial organisations. The following rules are to be read in conjunction with the Eligibility and Allocation Rules for All Open 2LDs, contained in Schedule A of this document. 1. To be eligible for a domain name in the asn.au 2LD, registrants must be non-commercial organisations as follows: a) an association incorporated in any Australian State or Territory; or b) a political party registered with the Australian Electoral Commission; or c) a trade union or other organisation registered under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009; or d) a sporting or special interest club operating in Australia; or
Wouldn't "D" cover that even if not incorporated we would still be a special interest group would we not ?
e) a charity operating in Australia, as defined in the registrant's constitution or other documents of incorporation; or f) a non-profit organisation operating in Australia, as defined in the registrant's constitution or other documents of incorporation.
James
-- Mark "Pockets" Clohesy Mob Phone: (+61) 406 417 877 Email: hiddensoul@twistedsouls.com G-Talk: mark.clohesy@gmail.com GNU/Linux..Linux Counter #457297 - "I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the source code" "Linux is user friendly...its just selective about who its friends are"
On 26/08/2013, at 7:52 AM, James Harper <james.harper@bendigoit.com.au> wrote:
Just as a point of clarification, disincorporation would mean that "LUV, Inc." would not exist, i.e., a separate legal entity.
Does not existing mean that luv has to surrender the luv.asn.au domain name and move to a subdomain under the parent body?
I thought about this when I read about the change. The rules you posted below confirm there shouldn't be a problem.
ELIGIBILITY AND ALLOCATION RULES FOR ASN.AU
The asn.au 2LD is for non-commercial organisations.
We would continue to meet this criteria.
The following rules are to be read in conjunction with the Eligibility and Allocation Rules for All Open 2LDs, contained in Schedule A of this document. 1. To be eligible for a domain name in the asn.au 2LD, registrants must be non-commercial organisations as follows: […] a) an association incorporated in any Australian State or Territory; or
tick, LA is an incorporated association.
d) a sporting or special interest club operating in Australia; or
As a LA sub committee LUV would continue to be a special interest club As with all .au domains, you must use the legal name, a trademark, a product name, a service name or a name you have a strong connection with. I think LA would have no problem proving a strong connection. Disclaimer: IANAL but I've registered a few .au domains with somewhat questionable connections over the years. Cheers Dave
On 25.08.13 18:06, Russell Coker wrote:
I expect that most members consider the existance of LUV to be determined by the mailing lists running and the meetings being held.
Yup, that's the size of it. As I've attended only one meeting, and enjoyed it, the ~100 km round trip is evidently only overcome by an attractive lecture. Add a food intolerance which makes eating at restaurants dicy, and the list becomes 95% of LUV for me. (It sounds like I wouldn't notice any difference.) Erik -- In attempting to ride roughshod over 1170 written objections, a local government determination, a resident survey 94% against them, and years of protests, McDonald's is seeking to trash democracy, I reckon. http://www.burgeroff.org/ We also have over 90,000 signatures on www.change.org Resistance is fertile!
On 25/08/13 12:21, Peter Nunn wrote:
I don't really have an opinion on the proposed merger, but I for one can say that unfortunately I've never been to a LUV meeting, despite being on the list of many years, because I simply can't make Tuesdays (I have a very long standing prior engagement every Tuesday). I guess the fact that I'm no where near the city doesn't help either, but that would be no such an impediment (perhaps not every month though). Having said all of that, I've been following these news lists for many years now (as I said earlier) and would really miss the lively discussions that go on here (even if mostly voyeuristic on my behalf).
I'd be interested to know how many others on these lists are in a similar situation.
There is likely a large number of Members who would share your opinion and be in a similar position as you regarding attendance at Meetings and interaction with the list. The survey of LUV Members a few years ago, clearly indicated that the LUV mailing list is by far the best and most appreciated asset of the organisation from Members perspective. Whether a dis-incorporatoin of LUV will affect the viability of the list in the future is an unresolved question at the moment. The discussion is about "dis-incorporation" at the moment, not a merger. I think there would be distinctions to be made between the two. A merger would probably imply that there was some "formal" and considered discussions between the parties involved. But that has not taken place. Cheers Daniel.
Peter.
On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 11:58:08 PM Russell Coker wrote:
On Sat, 24 Aug 2013, "Lev Lafayette" <lev@levlafayette.com> wrote:
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
If LUV is one of the greatest LUGs in the world then I don't think that LUGs
are going so well.
Does anyone keep stats on how LUV attendance has changed over the years? I
get the impression that we aren't doing nearly as well as we used to. Some
people claim that it's the availability of support on the Internet that has
decreased the attendance, but the number of people using Linux has
significantly increased too.
We are now using Meetup to advertise LUV meetings which has apparently done
some good.
What else can we do to get more members and better attendance at the meetings?
--
Director
InfoTeq Pty Ltd
0412 174 230
03 9017 2707
_______________________________________________ luv-main mailing list luv-main@luv.asn.au http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main
Hi Daniel, On Sun, August 25, 2013 3:03 pm, Daniel Jitnah wrote:
Whether a dis-incorporatoin of LUV will affect the viability of the list in the future is an unresolved question at the moment. The discussion is about "dis-incorporation" at the moment, not a merger. I think there would be distinctions to be made between the two. A merger would probably imply that there was some "formal" and considered discussions between the parties involved. But that has not taken place.
Firstly, the viability of the list(s) is not in question. SLUG, as a subcommittee of LA, still its mailing lists as a subcommittee. http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/ Secondly, this discussion has been on the formal agenda of the LUV committee since March this year, and has been discussed at most committee meetings on what it would mean for the organisation in terms of finances etc. Whether or not is this is "disincorporation" or a "merger" is moot; because in reality it's both. The motion would be that LUV disincorporates, and under the LA rules our members would automatically merge into their existing membership. 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 08/25/2013 12:21 PM, Peter Nunn wrote:
I don't really have an opinion on the proposed merger, but I for one can say that unfortunately I've never been to a LUV meeting, despite being on the list of many years, because I simply can't make Tuesdays (I have a very long standing prior engagement every Tuesday). I guess the fact that I'm no where near the city doesn't help either, but that would be no such an impediment (perhaps not every month though). Having said all of that, I've been following these news lists for many years now (as I said earlier) and would really miss the lively discussions that go on here (even if mostly voyeuristic on my behalf).
I'd be interested to know how many others on these lists are in a similar situation.
Peter.
Same here, nearly 380km round trip precludes me also. Roger
On Sat, 2013-08-24 at 23:58 +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
On Sat, 24 Aug 2013, "Lev Lafayette" <lev@levlafayette.com> wrote:
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
If LUV is one of the greatest LUGs in the world then I don't think that LUGs are going so well.
Does anyone keep stats on how LUV attendance has changed over the years? I get the impression that we aren't doing nearly as well as we used to. Some people claim that it's the availability of support on the Internet that has decreased the attendance, but the number of people using Linux has significantly increased too.
We are now using Meetup to advertise LUV meetings which has apparently done some good.
What else can we do to get more members and better attendance at the meetings?
The first Tuesday in the month clashes with the existentialist society, which some of us attend. Can we change it to say the third Tuesday? I'm not favor of dis-incorporation either.
On Sun, 25 Aug 2013, David Zuccaro <david.zuccaro@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
The first Tuesday in the month clashes with the existentialist society, which some of us attend. Can we change it to say the third Tuesday?
There is no way the main meeting will change except for public holidays and other government action. No matter what day you might suggest some organisation will have some meeting and people will want something else. Also the first Tuesday is a lot easier to remember than the 3rd Tuesday, so if nothing else the number of people who forget to attend a 3rd Tuesday meeting would probably exceed the number of people who are members of both organisations. However we can have multiple meetings. Currently we have the beginners meeting and the coffee meeting in addition to the main meeting. There is no reason why we can't have more if there are people who will attend. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On Sun, August 25, 2013 3:35 pm, Russell Coker wrote:
However we can have multiple meetings. Currently we have the beginners meeting and the coffee meeting in addition to the main meeting. There is no reason why we can't have more if there are people who will attend.
It should also be mentioned that Daniel has started organising smaller Linux meetups in various locations (Clayton and Prahan, I believe). These have been done through the MeetUp group and probably should also be on the Announces as well. (*nudge* to our Les and Daniel to follow this up, cc-ctte) -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GCertPM, MBA mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
"Lev Lafayette" <lev@levlafayette.com> writes:
Linux meetups in various locations (Clayton and Prahan, I believe). These have been done through the MeetUp group and probably should also be on the Announces as well.
Are you talking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meetup_(website) ? I can't see any reference to that on luv.asn.au. I've never heard of Meetup before this thread. TBH it won't affect my non-attendance either way; I don't enjoy meatspace or the people in it.
On Sun, 25 Aug 2013, "Trent W. Buck" <trentbuck@gmail.com> wrote:
Linux meetups in various locations (Clayton and Prahan, I believe). These have been done through the MeetUp group and probably should also be on the Announces as well.
Are you talking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meetup_(website) ? I can't see any reference to that on luv.asn.au. I've never heard of Meetup before this thread.
TBH it won't affect my non-attendance either way; I don't enjoy meatspace or the people in it.
The use of Meetup was mentioned at the general meeting. So this should be known to everyone who attends meetings and everyone who's a Meetup user. But you are correct that we should put more information in electronic announcements. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On 25/08/13 6:01 PM, Russell Coker wrote:
The use of Meetup was mentioned at the general meeting. So this should be known to everyone who attends meetings and everyone who's a Meetup user.
But you are correct that we should put more information in electronic announcements.
Here's an example of "capital city centric" thinking. Having to attend a central meeting to find out what else is happening isn't appropriate for a group such as LUV. Yep, would love to see this sort of thing mentioned in luv-announce. If there's a local meeting in the Bendigo region, I'll be interested in participating, provided it doesn't clash with anything else. -- 73 de Tony VK3JED/VK3IRL http://vkradio.com
On Sun, 25 Aug 2013, 17:41, Trent W. Buck wrote: } "Lev Lafayette" <lev@levlafayette.com> writes: } } > Linux meetups in various locations (Clayton and Prahan, I believe). These } > have been done through the MeetUp group and probably should also be on the } > Announces as well. } } Are you talking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meetup_(website) ? } I can't see any reference to that on luv.asn.au. } I've never heard of Meetup before this thread. meetup.com (mayhaps) T.
On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 03:35:51 PM Russell Coker wrote:
However we can have multiple meetings. Currently we have the beginners meeting and the coffee meeting in addition to the main meeting.
Coffee meeting? -- 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
On Sun, August 25, 2013 9:42 pm, Chris Samuel wrote:
On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 03:35:51 PM Russell Coker wrote:
However we can have multiple meetings. Currently we have the beginners meeting and the coffee meeting in addition to the main meeting.
Coffee meeting?
(I think CSam has a filter on all the mailing lists he's subscribed to to grep for the word 'coffee' just to make sure he doesn't miss something related to caffeine importance.) Yes, "coffee meetings". Daniel has organised a couple of these in Clayton and Prahan on Sunday afternoons. The general idea is just to meet up, drink coffee (or beverage of choice), and chat about Linux-y related things. It has been remiss of us not include these in luv-announce, but that will occur from now on. 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 Sun, 25 Aug 2013, "Lev Lafayette" <lev@levlafayette.com> wrote:
(I think CSam has a filter on all the mailing lists he's subscribed to to grep for the word 'coffee' just to make sure he doesn't miss something related to caffeine importance.)
Yes, "coffee meetings". Daniel has organised a couple of these in Clayton and Prahan on Sunday afternoons. The general idea is just to meet up, drink coffee (or beverage of choice), and chat about Linux-y related things.
Also it should be noted that the luv-main list is for discussing most things related to Linux in Victoria. Anyone who wants to arrange their own coffee meetings in their area is free to do so. Chris, you are fairly popular and could probably get a group of people to attend any meeting you care to arrange. Why not arrange a meeting in a cafe that's convenient to you?
It has been remiss of us not include these in luv-announce, but that will occur from now on.
I think it would be a good idea to have the committee work on various Internet stuff related to LUV after the beginner's SIG meeting. It's a time when we are all together and have net access. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 11:07:58 PM Russell Coker wrote:
Chris, you are fairly popular and could probably get a group of people to attend any meeting you care to arrange. Why not arrange a meeting in a cafe that's convenient to you?
Evenings are already fully committed pretty much these days. I could perhaps be tempted to arrange a lunchtime meet near Melbourne Uni in Carlton if people were interested? cheers, 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
On Sun, August 25, 2013 9:42 pm, Chris Samuel wrote:
On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 03:35:51 PM Russell Coker wrote:
However we can have multiple meetings. Currently we have the beginners meeting and the coffee meeting in addition to the main meeting. Coffee meeting?
(I think CSam has a filter on all the mailing lists he's subscribed to to grep for the word 'coffee' just to make sure he doesn't miss something related to caffeine importance.)
Yes, "coffee meetings". Daniel has organised a couple of these in Clayton and Prahan on Sunday afternoons. The general idea is just to meet up, drink coffee (or beverage of choice), and chat about Linux-y related things. Should add that, the idea is also:
1. Rather than "you" coming all the way to us to what may be an intimidating environment deep down a corridor or behind bushes late at night, specially if you are an absolute beginner, let us come half way to you in a public place, where even if this is really very intimidating and embarassing, you can still enjoy the time and partake in drinking the beverage of your choice and not feel so embarrassed. 2. If its done in a public place, it may raise the eyebrows of passers-by, and this might just tickle their curiosity about "what the hell are these guys with laptops or tablets doing here, and they seem to be having such a great time!"? I have usually briefly explained the above to those who come for the first time. It will take a while to pickup, but I am committed to trying it for 6 months and see what happens. Cheers, Daniel PS: next Coffee&Linux meetup is on Sun 8 September, Prahan Market food court at 1.30 pm off Rumbles Cafe. But preferably you will register on meetup.com if you are coming... and Please you don't have to say you are NOT coming!!! Note this will be the first one in Prahan
It has been remiss of us not include these in luv-announce, but that will occur from now on.
All the best,
On 26/08/13 09:32, Daniel Jitnah wrote:
On Sun, August 25, 2013 9:42 pm, Chris Samuel wrote:
On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 03:35:51 PM Russell Coker wrote:
However we can have multiple meetings. Currently we have the beginners meeting and the coffee meeting in addition to the main meeting. Coffee meeting?
(I think CSam has a filter on all the mailing lists he's subscribed to to grep for the word 'coffee' just to make sure he doesn't miss something related to caffeine importance.)
Yes, "coffee meetings". Daniel has organised a couple of these in Clayton and Prahan on Sunday afternoons. The general idea is just to meet up, drink coffee (or beverage of choice), and chat about Linux-y related things. Should add that, the idea is also:
1. Rather than "you" coming all the way to us to what may be an intimidating environment deep down a corridor or behind bushes late at night, specially if you are an absolute beginner, let us come half way to you in a public place, where even if this is really very intimidating and embarassing, you can still enjoy the time and partake in drinking the beverage of your choice and not feel so embarrassed.
2. If its done in a public place, it may raise the eyebrows of passers-by, and this might just tickle their curiosity about "what the hell are these guys with laptops or tablets doing here, and they seem to be having such a great time!"?
I have usually briefly explained the above to those who come for the first time. It will take a while to pickup, but I am committed to trying it for 6 months and see what happens.
Cheers, Daniel Golly I wish I could go to those, sounds like fun. Roger _______________________________________________ luv-main mailing list luv-main@luv.asn.au http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main
On Mon, 26 Aug 2013, Roger <arelem@bigpond.com> wrote:
Golly I wish I could go to those, sounds like fun.
Why can't you go? Is the location inconvenient? We could try to arrange one in an area that's better for you. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
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.
WOW! It may be the Hundredth Monkey principle, a tipping point of the Linux consciousness. In light of latest discussion, they should all dis incorporate and merge with LUV, make LUV bigger. "All you need is LUV" LUV has a ring to it that LAInc doesn't have. Linux Users Victorious Roger
Quoting Roger (arelem@bigpond.com):
WOW! It may be the Hundredth Monkey principle, a tipping point of the Linux consciousness.
On Sat, August 24, 2013 15:08, Lev Lafayette wrote:
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.
In reality, strictly speaking, all of the above will be untrue, if LUV is dis-incorporated there will be NO LUV. It will not be possible to have any reference to LUV in the future. There will be no LUV to "not be an independent organisation", or to "be part of a national organisation". There will be nothing to "own anything", hence any reference to "our something", eg: our administrative overhead, or "us" as such, "having more say in Country affairs", will be impossible. There will be no LUV to be a Member of. There will be a branch of LA (/subcommittee) whose role will be to continue some of the activities currently carried out by LUV in the short term at least, and deal with VIC specific issues when they arise "on behalf of LA". While the newly formed "subcommittee" may notionally have a sense of "us" at the beginning, this will most likely disappear later on, because they will not exist as an entity. In terms of having a more direct input into country-wide affairs, nothing really changes. All Members of LUV are entitled to be Members of LA and will be able to remain so. LUV's existence does not reduce their input on national affairs. The same applies to LA Members from Victoria participating more in VIC activities (... in fact its the participation of a LA Member from VIC that has started this current discussion in the first place!! ) .. What determines their participation is their ability to do so given their other commitments in their lives. That will not change.
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.
I love this video!! ... if only there was TUX featuring in it instead of the bunny!! Cheers Daniel
Daniel Jitnah <djitnah@greenwareit.com.au> wrote:
In reality, strictly speaking, all of the above will be untrue, if LUV is dis-incorporated there will be NO LUV. It will not be possible to have any reference to LUV in the future. There will be no LUV to "not be an independent organisation", or to "be part of a national organisation". There will be nothing to "own anything", hence any reference to "our something", eg: our administrative overhead, or "us" as such, "having more say in Country affairs", will be impossible. There will be no LUV to be a Member of.
There will be a branch of LA (/subcommittee) whose role will be to continue some of the activities currently carried out by LUV in the short term at least, and deal with VIC specific issues when they arise "on behalf of LA". While the newly formed "subcommittee" may notionally have a sense of "us" at the beginning, this will most likely disappear later on, because they will not exist as an entity.
In terms of having a more direct input into country-wide affairs, nothing really changes. All Members of LUV are entitled to be Members of LA and will be able to remain so. LUV's existence does not reduce their input on national affairs. The same applies to LA Members from Victoria participating more in VIC activities (... in fact its the participation of a LA Member from VIC that has started this current discussion in the first place!! ) .. What determines their participation is their ability to do so given their other commitments in their lives. That will not change.
I haven't seen anything in the thread so far that would make me inclined to vote for dis-incorporation. I'm assuming there will be an online poll of members - let me signal that I'll be voting "no" unless someone comes up with a really good case in favour.
On 25/08/13 12:55 PM, Jason White wrote:
I haven't seen anything in the thread so far that would make me inclined to vote for dis-incorporation. I'm assuming there will be an online poll of members - let me signal that I'll be voting "no" unless someone comes up with a really good case in favour. I'd like to see the case laid out in full. I'm yet to be convinced as well. I'm also concerned about how "capital city centric" organisations can be. At least LUV has the mailing lists, which don't require one to be close to any particular place (other than an Internet connection ;) ).
-- 73 de Tony VK3JED/VK3IRL http://vkradio.com
On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 01:23:55PM +1000, Tony Langdon wrote:
On 25/08/13 12:55 PM, Jason White wrote:
I haven't seen anything in the thread so far that would make me inclined to vote for dis-incorporation. I'm assuming there will be an online poll of members - let me signal that I'll be voting "no" unless someone comes up with a really good case in favour. I'd like to see the case laid out in full. I'm yet to be convinced as well. I'm also concerned about how "capital city centric" organisations can be. At least LUV has the mailing lists, which don't require one to be close to any particular place (other than an Internet connection ;) ).
Me too. I don't recall seeing a proper explanation why we should be merging with Linux Aust - did I miss it? Good point re the mailing lists too - how will / can they continue? Lev - have you got anything? Cheers ... Duncan. -- Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
On Sun, August 25, 2013 2:25 pm, Duncan Roe wrote:
Me too. I don't recall seeing a proper explanation why we should be merging with Linux Aust - did I miss it?
I thought I'd made the case (given the fact I'm neutral on this anyway). But still * Volunteer insurance, something we currently don't have). * Reduced administration * Incorporation of our members as LA members (which I *suspect* at least 1/3rd aren't).
Good point re the mailing lists too - how will / can they continue?
Our mailing lists will continue, just as with other regional subcommittees. 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 Sun, 25 Aug 2013, "Lev Lafayette" <lev@levlafayette.com> wrote:
On Sun, August 25, 2013 2:25 pm, Duncan Roe wrote:
Me too. I don't recall seeing a proper explanation why we should be merging with Linux Aust - did I miss it?
I thought I'd made the case (given the fact I'm neutral on this anyway). But still
* Volunteer insurance, something we currently don't have). * Reduced administration
Insurance is a good thing. It's also a really good thing to not have to worry about such things, to have LA just do them.
* Incorporation of our members as LA members (which I *suspect* at least 1/3rd aren't).
Of course incorporating with LA isn't required for that. But giving LUV members greater involvement in the national LUG scene would be a good thing.
Good point re the mailing lists too - how will / can they continue?
Our mailing lists will continue, just as with other regional subcommittees.
Peter Lieverdink retired as sysadmin recently. Since then I volunteered to take over but due to distractions from various other projects haven't yet migrated the lists to the new server. Given the fact that the LA servers are well run and that a mailing list takes no significant traffic by today's standards it would make sense to have the LUV lists run on the LA server. As the LA lists are run on Mailman it should be fairly easy to migrate them and save some sysadmin time in the long term. Really it doesn't matter much where the list server is located, having a server in Victoria isn't a great benefit for LUV members. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On 25/08/13 13:23, Tony Langdon wrote:
On 25/08/13 12:55 PM, Jason White wrote:
I haven't seen anything in the thread so far that would make me inclined to vote for dis-incorporation. I'm assuming there will be an online poll of members - let me signal that I'll be voting "no" unless someone comes up with a really good case in favour. I'd like to see the case laid out in full. I'm yet to be convinced as well. I'm also concerned about how "capital city centric" organisations can be. At least LUV has the mailing lists, which don't require one to be close to any particular place (other than an Internet connection ;) ).
And LUV has put and is putting some efforts into decentralising its activities :) ! Daniel.
Lev, you say that this will be discussed at the AGM, yet the rest of your email (beginning "what will change") reads as though disincorporation is a decided matter. Personally I much rather prefer a decentralised, horizontal structure and more powerful localised bodies and do not see any worthwhile regional or personal gain from such a merger. Having said that, MLUG will no doubt fit that model very well and be there to carry on for a local group of people more interested in Linux fun than political overhead. Also, I can't make it physically to the AGM (and tbh don't feel all that strongly on the subject to sit through a committee meeting), but will there be a participatory webinar feed? Daniel Lev Lafayette <lev@levlafayette.com> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ luv-main mailing list luv-main@luv.asn.au http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main
-- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Hi Daniel, On Sun, August 25, 2013 1:49 pm, Daniel Cross wrote:
Lev, you say that this will be discussed at the AGM, yet the rest of your email (beginning "what will change") reads as though disincorporation is a decided matter.
"What will change" is always with the caveat of "if" the motion is passed. The question mark in the title was also meant to indicate the uncertain nature of the proposition.
Also, I can't make it physically to the AGM (and tbh don't feel all that strongly on the subject to sit through a committee meeting), but will there be a participatory webinar feed?
That option doesn't exist under our existing rules and we don't have the facilities in any case. 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 Sat, 24 Aug 2013 03:08:09 PM Lev Lafayette wrote:
Our income and expenditure will also be legally part of Linux Australia as well
Have our current sponsors indicated that they would be prepared to transfer their sponsorship to LA in the event of this happening? Have LA indicated they would cover any such loss of sponsorship for venue hire, etc, should this go ahead and should the sponsors no longer be interested? cheers, 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
Hi Chris, On Sun, August 25, 2013 9:45 pm, Chris Samuel wrote:
Have our current sponsors indicated that they would be prepared to transfer their sponsorship to LA in the event of this happening?
Yes, I believe I mentioned that in the in the original email. That has been clarified. LA have said that sponsorship to LUV, Inc., can be managed by LUV, subcommittee for LUV purposes. 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 Sun, 25 Aug 2013 10:53:52 PM Lev Lafayette wrote:
Yes, I believe I mentioned that in the in the original email. That has been clarified. LA have said that sponsorship to LUV, Inc., can be managed by LUV, subcommittee for LUV purposes.
Ah, not quite what I was asking, sorry! What I was meant have sponsors such as Red Hat given an indication that they will continue their sponsorship should LUV cease to exist as an independent organisation? cheers! 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
On Sun, 25 Aug 2013, Chris Samuel <chris@csamuel.org> wrote:
On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 03:08:09 PM Lev Lafayette wrote:
Our income and expenditure will also be legally part of Linux Australia as well
Have our current sponsors indicated that they would be prepared to transfer their sponsorship to LA in the event of this happening?
I believe that has already been confirmed. I believe that people will be able to donate to LA and have donations earmarked for LUV.
Have LA indicated they would cover any such loss of sponsorship for venue hire, etc, should this go ahead and should the sponsors no longer be interested?
I don't believe that we will lose any sponsorship. The venue hire is the least risky in this regard as there will be no change to it at all. Donations of money will go through the LA bank account and there is a risk of some donors not liking it. But when the donation is renting venue for a group of people to use and getting credit electronically and at the meeting nothing needs to change. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 03:08:09 PM Lev Lafayette wrote:
In a few weeks, Linux Users of Victoria, Inc., will be holding another Annual General Meeting.
In the past votes for positions at AGMs have been conducted via MemberDB, is the plan for this item to be voted on that way too? It would certainly permit those who are not able to physically attend to have a say in a matter that is perhaps the most fundamental that LUV could vote on. If not, could I be as bold as to suggest that this matter be deferred until such an online vote be possible? I really don't think it'd be fair on LUV as a whole to decide this based purely on the ability to physically attend the meeting. cheers, 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
Hi Chris,
In the past votes for positions at AGMs have been conducted via MemberDB, is the plan for this item to be voted on that way too?
Strictly speaking under the rules they really shouldn't have been. If anyone ever challenged results from online polls I think they would have succeeded (IANAL, etc). Votes must be conduced in person or with a signed proxy form.
I really don't think it'd be fair on LUV as a whole to decide this based purely on the ability to physically attend the meeting.
That's what proxies are for. Copy of our rules (including proxy forms) are here: https://luv.asn.au/node/8 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 Sun, 25 Aug 2013 11:01:03 PM Lev Lafayette wrote:
Strictly speaking under the rules they really shouldn't have been. If anyone ever challenged results from online polls I think they would have succeeded (IANAL, etc).
Votes must be conduced in person or with a signed proxy form.
Perhaps then it might be handy for two people to volunteer as proxies for the "yes" and "no" camps and so people will know they can nominate a certain person. Otherwise those outside Melbourne may not know whom they could nominate. I'm happy to take either position if somone strongly wants to take the other (I'm ambivalent on the issue). Thoughts? 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
On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 11:01:03 PM Lev Lafayette wrote:
That's what proxies are for.
Copy of our rules (including proxy forms) are here:
One minor issue, to be a member (and hence vote) it says: # (3) An application of a person for membership of the Association must - # # (a) be made in writing in the form set out in Appendix 1; # (b) be lodged with the Secretary of the Association. I don't think I've ever filled out the form at the end (let alone submitted it in writing to the secretary) so I'm guessing I'm not actually a member of LUV? The rules do not mention luv-announce at all, which is what I thought was the criteria. Do we have anyone who is a member of LUV under the rules? :-) cheers! Chris (playing Eris for the day) -- 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
On Sun, September 1, 2013 4:51 pm, Chris Samuel wrote:
Do we have anyone who is a member of LUV under the rules? :-)
Probably not. I do recall raising this at an AGM two years ago :) -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GCertPM, MBA mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
[In response to Chris Samuel <chris@csamuel.org>:]
One minor issue, to be a member (and hence vote) it says: ...
Should I have added smileys to your post? Well, I guess all I can say is that I hope that we work through this all with reasonableness and good will. I think that for membership we have a pretty well established and accepted mechanism. For things like contentious resolutions and proxy voting, we don't have so much experience -- so in the absence of that experience, the best we can do is follow the laid-out rules as seem reasonable. That's just my personal opinion. -- Smiles, Les (just as LUV member).
Hiya Les, et. al, On 01/09/13 23:52, Les Kitchen wrote:
[In response to Chris Samuel <chris@csamuel.org>:]
One minor issue, to be a member (and hence vote) it says: ...
Should I have added smileys to your post?
I thought I'd added some, apologies if I didn't!
Well, I guess all I can say is that I hope that we work through this all with reasonableness and good will.
Indeed. My major concern is that we've said that we cannot do this vote electronically (and so permit those who cannot attend to vote directly rather than via a proxy) because the LUV rules don't allow it, but then the same rules have a process for being a member that I don't think anyone was really aware of (or have followed, certainly I hadn't) and so the number of people who can vote is probably very low (tending to 0). I'm going to send in my membership form today and hopefully the committee can approve me before the AGM tomorrow so I can vote on this issue.
I think that for membership we have a pretty well established and accepted mechanism.
As an ex committee member (and former treasurer) myself I would have agreed with you right up until I re-read the rules on the weekend and saw what's required to be a member. I presumably missed that before (very much my bad), or they're based on the latest set of model rules from the State Govt that came out this year.
For things like contentious resolutions and proxy voting, we don't have so much experience -- so in the absence of that experience, the best we can do is follow the laid-out rules as seem reasonable.
I'm more than happy to follow the rules, it's just that I'm concerned that the rules don't seem to match anyones understanding of what is required to be a member of LUV (and so to be eligible to vote). Sorry to be a pain on this matter, but I do think it's something we need to figure out how to deal with for this AGM. All the best, Chris -- Chris Samuel : http://www.csamuel.org/ : Melbourne, VIC
One minor issue, to be a member (and hence vote) it says:
Jumping up to a higher level: In retrospect, for something as momentous as disincorporation, we should've started serious consideration of it months ago, so we had sufficient time not only to discuss the matter itself, but also to ensure that our processes were set up well enough to handle the decision smoothly. But as it is, we have the resolution on our AGM agenda, and we just have to deal with it as best and as reasonably as we collectively can under the current messy and arguably paradoxical arrangements. Even if the resolution fails (as I hope it does), I think it will still serve a useful purpose of stimulating the discussion we perhaps should have had. -- Smiles, Les (just as LUV member).
Les Kitchen <ljk@csse.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
In retrospect, for something as momentous as disincorporation, we should've started serious consideration of it months ago, so we had sufficient time not only to discuss the matter itself, but also to ensure that our processes were set up well enough to handle the decision smoothly.
Agreed.
But as it is, we have the resolution on our AGM agenda, and we just have to deal with it as best and as reasonably as we collectively can under the current messy and arguably paradoxical arrangements.
Even if the resolution fails (as I hope it does), I think it will still serve a useful purpose of stimulating the discussion we perhaps should have had.
Indeed. It's also an opportunity (assuming the resolution fails) to review the rules regarding membership and voting arrangements. For example, I would expect a digital signature to be accepted as attesting to the authenticity of a proxy form, but there is no provision for this, and I'm not sure how Victorian law currently stands in this respect. (Digital signatures were an issue in Australia some years ago, but I didn't follow the details of how the legal concerns were resolved.) In any case, I digitally signed the form that I submitted in order to remove any doubts.
On 02/09/13 12:59, Jason White wrote:
Indeed. It's also an opportunity (assuming the resolution fails) to review the rules regarding membership and voting arrangements.
I would argue that it's fairer to the members in general if we sort the membership and voting out *before* we vote whether or not to wind up the association. I note that if we do vote to wind up LUV then "the property of the association vests in the Registrar" (according to the current 2012 act) and it looks like they appoint who disposes of them.
For example, I would expect a digital signature to be accepted as attesting to the authenticity of a proxy form, but there is no provision for this, and I'm not sure how Victorian law currently stands in this respect. (Digital signatures were an issue in Australia some years ago, but I didn't follow the details of how the legal concerns were resolved.)
Our rules allow the committee leeway on what to accept, they say: # "form" includes an electronic form where the signature is replaced by # appropriate validation;
In any case, I digitally signed the form that I submitted in order to remove any doubts.
Same here. cheers! Chris -- Chris Samuel : http://www.csamuel.org/ : Melbourne, VIC
Hi Chris, On Mon, September 2, 2013 2:42 pm, Chris Samuel wrote:
I note that if we do vote to wind up LUV then "the property of the association vests in the Registrar" (according to the current 2012 act) and it looks like they appoint who disposes of them.
That's not the case, refer to s.132 of the Act. In the even of winding surplus assets are distributed according to the rules or a special resolution. You're referring to s.140.2 which is *after* cancellation. Cancellation happens *after* winding up, or by court order (i.e., the association has been very naughty indeed). An organisation which winds up distributes its surplus assets according to section 132 and then has its incorporation cancelled. If there's any assets after that (e.g., somebody discovers a suitcase of gold that belonged to the former organisation that wasn't distributed) that goes to the Registrar, according to s.140 All the best, -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GCertPM, MBA mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
An organisation which winds up distributes its surplus assets according to section 132 and then has its incorporation cancelled. If there's any assets after that (e.g., somebody discovers a suitcase of gold that belonged to the former organisation that wasn't distributed) that goes to the Registrar, according to s.140
So, Lev, where's our suitcase of gold? :-) Followups to luv-talk... :-) -- Smiles, Les.
On 02/09/13 16:46, Lev Lafayette wrote:
That's not the case, refer to s.132 of the Act. In the even of winding surplus assets are distributed according to the rules or a special resolution.
You are indeed correct, I'd missed that part! Thanks Lev, I thought it sounded a bit draconian.. :-) -- Chris Samuel : http://www.csamuel.org/ : Melbourne, VIC
On 2/09/13 2:42 PM, Chris Samuel wrote:
On 02/09/13 12:59, Jason White wrote:
Indeed. It's also an opportunity (assuming the resolution fails) to review the rules regarding membership and voting arrangements. I would argue that it's fairer to the members in general if we sort the membership and voting out *before* we vote whether or not to wind up the association. I agree! And the more I think about it, the more I'm against the proposal.... but... Our rules allow the committee leeway on what to accept, they say:
# "form" includes an electronic form where the signature is replaced by # appropriate validation; I must:
1. Sort out a gpg key and have it signed so LUV can verify my signature 2. Get my head around the proxy process. Sadly, #1 won't happen before this AGM, so it's doubtful I'll get a proxy in. :( -- 73 de Tony VK3JED/VK3IRL http://vkradio.com
On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 07:27:36PM +1000, Tony Langdon wrote:
I must:
1. Sort out a gpg key and have it signed so LUV can verify my signature
it's easier than you (probably) think. full details at http://www.gnupg.org/gph/en/manual.html but to summarise: 1. generate a key with 'gpg --gen-key'. answer the questions, go with the defaults (but choose at least 2048 bits for the key). you probably want to use your vk3jed@gmail.com address in the user id. you can add additional email addresses / identities later if you want. pick a good pass-phrase for your key. something you'll remember but hard to guess / brute-force. 2. upload it to a key server: gpg --keyserver certserver.pgp.com --send-key vk3jed@gmail.com that's it. done. but read on, there's a little more to do to make your shiny new key more trustworthy. you probably don't have time to get anyone else to sign your key but if there's someone nearby who already has a pgp or gpg key, show them your driver's license, passport or other official ID, and ask them to download your key from the keyserver, sign it, and re-upload it. you'll probably want to print out the key's fingerprint to give to them so that they know they're signing the right key (e.g. in case someone else also uploads a key claiming to be from you). gpg --fingerprint vk3jed@gmail.com if you can get someone else to sign your key, that would be a Good Thing but the key works perfectly well without other signatures - as long as whoever you're using it with decides that they're willing to trust it. signatures from other people just give additional support to the proposition that someone ought to trust your key to identify you. this is the "web of trust", the more people who claim to know you and/or have verified your ID, the better. next time you're in melbourne, or at a geek conference ask around to see if anyone's organising a key-signing or will meet you to sign your key - bring multiple printed copies of the fingerprint to hand out. IIRC Russell has organised several key-signing parties over the years, some here on LUV and some via the debian-melb list.
2. Get my head around the proxy process.
fill in the form, sign it with gnupg, and email it to the LUV secretary your MUA may be able to do the signing for you - mutt can, and thunderbird/icedove has the enigmail extension (which can even do all the key generation and upload stuff for you), and some other MUAs have encryption/signing support too. craig -- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
On 2/09/13 8:22 PM, Craig Sanders wrote: > On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 07:27:36PM +1000, Tony Langdon wrote: >> I must: >> >> 1. Sort out a gpg key and have it signed so LUV can verify my signature > it's easier than you (probably) think. For the most part, yep, but to be reasonably trustworthy, it would have to be signed... > next time you're in melbourne, or at a geek conference ask around to see > if anyone's organising a key-signing or will meet you to sign your key > - bring multiple printed copies of the fingerprint to hand out. IIRC > Russell has organised several key-signing parties over the years, some > here on LUV and some via the debian-melb list. > Easier said than done. I haven't done a casual visit to Melbourne in over 3 years (i.e. since I left). Every visit has been for a specific reason. >> 2. Get my head around the proxy process. > fill in the form, sign it with gnupg, and email it to the LUV secretary > > your MUA may be able to do the signing for you - mutt can, and > thunderbird/icedove has the enigmail extension (which can even do all > the key generation and upload stuff for you), and some other MUAs have > encryption/signing support too. I'll look into that, since I run Thunderbird. -- 73 de Tony VK3JED/VK3IRL http://vkradio.com
Chris Samuel <chris@csamuel.org> wrote:
One minor issue, to be a member (and hence vote) it says:
# (3) An application of a person for membership of the Association must - # # (a) be made in writing in the form set out in Appendix 1; # (b) be lodged with the Secretary of the Association.
I don't think I've ever filled out the form at the end (let alone submitted it in writing to the secretary) so I'm guessing I'm not actually a member of LUV?
I remember filling in a registration form when I first joined (in the late 90s), which presumably went to the Secretary. Whether it was in accordance with the rules then in force is another question entirely, of course, that I'm poorly equipped to answer.
On 09/02/2013 11:54 AM, Jason White wrote:
Chris Samuel <chris@csamuel.org> wrote:
One minor issue, to be a member (and hence vote) it says:
# (3) An application of a person for membership of the Association must - # # (a) be made in writing in the form set out in Appendix 1; # (b) be lodged with the Secretary of the Association.
I don't think I've ever filled out the form at the end (let alone submitted it in writing to the secretary) so I'm guessing I'm not actually a member of LUV? I remember filling in a registration form when I first joined (in the late 90s), which presumably went to the Secretary. Whether it was in accordance with the rules then in force is another question entirely, of course, that I'm poorly equipped to answer.
I too, seem to remember filling in a form about that time to become a member but after receiving an acceptance, have no idea of what happened afterwards. Roger
participants (21)
-
Chris Samuel -
Craig Sanders -
Daniel Cross -
Daniel Jitnah -
Dave Hall -
David Zuccaro -
Duncan Roe -
Erik Christiansen -
Hiddensoul (Mark Clohesy) -
James Harper -
Jason White -
Les Kitchen -
Lev Lafayette -
Peter Nunn -
Rick Moen -
Roger -
Russell Coker -
Shane Deering -
Tony Crisp -
Tony Langdon -
trentbuck＠gmail.com