[Linux-aus] State representation on the board: conf location

[Leon Brooks]

On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 20:19, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> This is a specific case, and one that I too am not happy about (I
> just hadn't expressed that publically yet). Here's why: In previous
> years, the tradition was to select the location *at* the conference,
> so everyone could sit down and have a good chat about it, and nut it
> out together. That didn't happen this year.

There are points from both sides which haven't yet been brought out 
here.

When WA won the bid last year, it was pretty much a foregone conclusion: 
we were the only ones ready and enthusiastic, and the video clip was 
basically just a coup de grace.

I can't yet comment on the choice of venue for 2005 but the situation is 
pretty much the same. And they have some neat toys on site. (-:

> I am unhappy with this on two counts. First, it was an unannounced
> break with tradition. I thought that tradition was very important, so
> I probably would have brought up my disagreement with it were the
> change proposed. But, if the reasons behind it were good, I probably
> would have supported it. As it stands, a choice was made, no one even
> knows who yet, and ho one had the opportunity to express concern
> about the change in tradition before it was made.

I agree that this was bad. I suspect that amongst other things the 2005 
venue won't be trying as hard to make their case at this conf.

I didn't consider the history/tradition angle at the time since the 
decision seemed reasonably clear-cut, and that was lame.

> Note: I am lame because I didn't respond to this as soon as it
> happened. I should have done that.

True, but maybe it wouldn't have helped either.

> You do. They are the committee. They answer to the community. They
> are known to the community. You have IRC, this list, people who live
> near them, the committee mailing list, and you can easily get their
> phone numbers too. When you say "no one to talk to" it really means
> that you didn't use the possible methods of following these things up
> to your best advantage.

You took one paragraph to say what I used about seven to not quite say. 
I feel highly outclassed. (-:

> I strongly disagree. The locality specific stuff is dealt with
> per-locale, via the independent linux.conf.au organising team and
> LUGs. What LA does isn't locale-specific, other than the locale of
> "Australia". It's function as a meta-organisation for the community
> and LUGs can be dealt with in media that are also
> non-locale-specific. It is the *LUGs* who do the local work, and deal
> with the local issues, and they are a big input factor on anything
> that LA would do locally.

Well said.

> I honestly think the real solution to your problems is to fix the
> openness and transparency problems the committee has had this year. I
> understand that it may be hard to do in the first year of newfound
> openness (LA was previously either mired in public flamewars, not
> doing anything at all, or a very closed non-community organisation).
> It's hard particularly when LA has had to rebuild itself from square
> one due to the mistakes made in the past.

Agree; lots of administrivia had to be figured out incrementally. And 
our poor overworked secretary was dealing with minutes from all corners 
of the globe.

And in fact location is a *dis*advantage because ticket prices and 
travel times from Perth are much higher. If you could see your way 
clear to only electing New South Welshmen this year, the Committee 
could reasonably have face2face meetings every fortnight.

Cheers; Leon

-- 
http://cyberknights.com.au/     Modern tools; traditional dedication
http://plug.linux.org.au/       Committee Member, Perth Linux User Group
http://slpwa.asn.au/            Committee Member, Linux Professionals WA
http://linux.org.au/            Committee Member, Linux Australia