Re: The End of LUV, Inc? An Example of Federalism and Unitary Organisational Structures
Daniel Cross said,
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.
A comment on the above statements on this issue, now I have worked on the committees of two volunteer orginisations and __DO__ apreciate what is trying to be done to simplify matters, but on reading the whole series of messages I must say I have same ___impression___ as Daniel, that is the merger is being presented as a done deal and one simply cannot do this in a democratic group such as this. On the whole I am not a bit surprised on the groups reaction. When presenting any information that may be headed for a hostile reception it is wise to be carefull of the wording, rereading and correcting to make sure it says what you wish it to see without giving a false impression. It has taken me usually 2 to 3 __HOURS___ to formulate a 400 word post under these conditions (an undisclosed news thread) and I am proud to say, I never had a single post missinterprited. Lindsay
On Mon, 26 Aug 2013, zlinw@mcmedia.com.au wrote:
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.
A comment on the above statements on this issue, now I have worked on the committees of two volunteer orginisations and __DO__ apreciate what is trying to be done to simplify matters, but on reading the whole series of messages I must say I have same ___impression___ as Daniel, that is the merger is being presented as a done deal and one simply cannot do this in a democratic group such as this. On the whole I am not a bit surprised on the groups reaction.
It really isn't being presented as a done deal. Lev doesn't seem to care what happens in this regard which is presumably why he chose the subject which was destined to cause controversy. Daniel Jitnah is opposed which is presumably why he started claiming that the future of the mailing list is "unresolved". There has never at any time been any doubt about the future of the mailing list. There has been a long history of adding lists for SIGs as needed and removing them if the demand isn't there, but luv-main has remained and will continue. The fundamental definition of LUV is that it's a volunteer organisation that supports users of Linux (and other free OSs) in Victoria. I attended the meeting where the name LUV was selected and was a LUV member before LUV was an incorporated body. Being an incorporated body was never fundamental to LUV, it was merely a necessity for various legal reasons before the existence of LA. LUV pre-dates LA, if LA had been around and offering free insurance when LUV first started there would never have been an incorporated body for LUV.
When presenting any information that may be headed for a hostile reception it is wise to be carefull of the wording, rereading and correcting to make sure it says what you wish it to see without giving a false impression. It has taken me usually 2 to 3 __HOURS___ to formulate a 400 word post under these conditions (an undisclosed news thread) and I am proud to say, I never had a single post missinterprited.
I don't think that the problem here is misunderstanding the messages. I think that the only thing we could have done better in this regard would be to make an itemised list of everything that LUV owns, receives, and does and for each item explain how it will either not change or improve. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au> wrote:
I don't think that the problem here is misunderstanding the messages. I think that the only thing we could have done better in this regard would be to make an itemised list of everything that LUV owns, receives, and does and for each item explain how it will either not change or improve.
At a minimum, a good summary of the arguments on both sides would be useful prior to voting.
Hi Fellow LUVvers, I've been following traffic about the proposed disincorporation of LUV, and I'd like to add my own views to the discussion -- just as a member of LUV, *not* in any official capacity as being on the committee. First up, let me state my position, so you know where I'm coming from: Personally, I'm not in favor of disincorporation at the moment. I'm not locked into that view. I can see that there are some good reasons for disincorporating, but so far I don't think they're strong enough to make the change. Second, I want to make clear that I think disincorporation is an issue on which reasonable people, who care about LUV, can come to different conclusions. We all want to advance the interests of LUV and Linux, but might have different opinions about how best to achieve that. Third, I want to dispel any apocalyptic notions that disincorporation would mean the End Of LUV As We Know It. All the activities of LUV could, and probably would, continue much as they are now -- meetings, mailing lists, etc. They'd be on a different legal basis, though. Now we do it as an independent association incorporated in Victoria. If we disincorporated, it would be as a subcommittee of Linux Australia (which as I understand it is an association incorporated in NSW -- henceforth "LA"). And, while it happened before my time, and I'll have to rely on the memories of more senior members, LUV did exist and function before it was incorporated as LUV Inc. Even though I'm personally opposed to disincorporation, I mention the above because I think members should base their decisions on the real issues, not on exaggerated fears. Having laid that groundwork, I'd like to lay out what I think: I guess my fundamental reason for opposing disincorporation is from being a Federalist at heart -- having a strong belief that things work better when power is distributed, and when decisions are made close to where they matter. Now we have a legal basis for our autonomy. If we did disincorporate and became a subcommittee of LA, we would loose the legal basis for that autonomy. I believe that LA and its people are reasonable, and I expect that we as LUV would be left to run our local affairs much as we do now. However, I can't put out of my mind the worry that some way down the track, LA collectively might make decisions that we as LUV don't want, and we'd then have no basis for objecting, since LUV then would just be a creature of LA. That's a pretty unlikely scenario, but still it worries me. Sure, if we as "Linux users in Victoria", ended up extremely unhappy with being just a subcommittee of LA, we could vote with our feet and set up some separate structure (which might even be incorporated). But by then we would have lost the rights to the luv.asn.au domain, and I expect also to the Linux Users of Victoria name. It's very hard to unscramble the egg. Sure there are some practical advantages to merging with LA. We'd be spared the adminstrative overhead of being a separate incorporated association, and would likely have savings in insurance. But that adminstrative overhead is not all that much work for the LUV committee (except around AGM time), and all up I don't think those relatively small practical advantages outweigh the loss of real autonomy. It's been said that disincorporation would facilitate cooperation with LA (since we would be LA). And I guess there's some truth in that. But really we can still cooperate effectively with LA as an independent organization -- as we do now to varying degrees with LA, and with other like-minded groups like Free Software Melbourne, MLUG, etc. In fact, this discussion has reminded me that perhaps we need to be a bit more active about these collaborations. About sponsorship: it seems that there's no reason why sponsorships to LUV Inc. could not continue as targetted sponsorship to LUV as subcommittee of LA, even though it might go to a different bank account. So there probably wouldn't be any immediate practical change to that. And it's even conceivable that being part of LA would open up other sources of sponsorship. But I don't think that possibility is enough to outweigh the loss of real autonomy. And one final comment: If we stay as we are, as LUV Inc., then there's nothing to stop us from revisiting the issue further down the track -- when reasons for formally merging with LA might be more compelling. But if we do disincorporate and become a subcommittee of LUV, going back, while not impossible, would be very very difficult. Like I said, it's very hard to unscramble the egg. I guess what I'm saying is that, because it is largely irreversible, we should hold off changing unless we're really certain it is the best thing to do. Well, those are my personal opinions. I hope they've made some useful contribution to the discussion. -- Smiles, Les.
On Mon, August 26, 2013 5:20 pm, Russell Coker wrote:
It really isn't being presented as a done deal. Lev doesn't seem to care what happens in this regard which is presumably why he chose the subject which was destined to cause controversy.
I think it's more accurate to say that I do care, but I'm also (trying to be) neutral. :) -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GCertPM, MBA mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
In reply to Lev Lafayette's mail of Mon, 26 Aug 2013 17:56:34 +1000.
On Mon, August 26, 2013 5:20 pm, Russell Coker wrote:
It really isn't being presented as a done deal. Lev doesn't seem to care what happens in this regard which is presumably why he chose the subject which was destined to cause controversy.
I think it's more accurate to say that I do care, but I'm also (trying to be) neutral.
:)
Yeah. That's how I took it, that Lev was trying to be as neutral as possible. -- Smiles, Les.
On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 06:07:50 AM zlinw@mcmedia.com.au wrote:
the merger is being presented as a done deal and one simply cannot do this in a democratic group such as this
Well given it can be defeated by a vote at the AGM it's not really a done deal. :-) -- 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
participants (6)
-
Chris Samuel -
Jason White -
Les Kitchen -
Lev Lafayette -
Russell Coker -
zlinw＠mcmedia.com.au