[Linux-aus] Legal issues, minutes? [Was: State representation on the board]

[Jeff Waugh]

<quote who="Anthony Towns">

> So, for comparison, I bumped into Stewart on IRC a few days ago, and
> mentioned something related to LA, and got told roughly what was going on
> with the minutes, and that it'd be fixed RSN (as apparently it has been).
> Likewise, keeping my ear to the ground made it pretty obvious who had
> gotten l.c.a 2005 not long after Hugh announced that someone had.  (Of
> course, now it's in the LA minutes, so anyone can find out...)
> 
> I can't understand why it'd be the case, but maybe I have better luck with
> informal channels than Jeff, leading me to value them more highly than
> Jeff does? Maybe I'm just a gossip queen.

Canberra was fairly obvious from the beginning, dude. :-) I have posted
questions on this list because I'm far more interested in seeing these
issues reported to the community, as they are supposed to be, rather than
talking to any member of the committee "quietly" or "in gossip". I think
that throughout the discussion, you've put an unhealthy emphasis on this
kind of informal information dispersal *precisely because* 2003's committee
were not able to fully satisfy our communication requirements. We should be
concentrating on fixing that, making sure the committee know what we expect,
etc., etc.

> Theory: formal channels are more effective -- they reach more people, more
> quickly; informal channels are more robust -- they don't fail completely
> if there are things that shouldn't be talked about, or if people start
> getting very busy.

Also, ability to connect informal channels has little to do with locality!

- Jeff

-- 
linux.conf.au 2004: Adelaide, Australia         http://lca2004.linux.org.au/
 
  We're kind of like Canada, only we hate ourselves more, and it's wetter
                             around the edges.