[Linux-aus] LA Name Change - the process

[Brent Wallis]

Hi,

On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 1:08 AM, James Turnbull <james at lovedthanlost.net>wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Brent Wallis wrote:
> > However, I do believe that I have a right to make my opinion public.
> > TBH my opinion on this matter is probably a minority one.
>
> No one is objecting you having an opinion - both Donna and I objected to
> the snide insinuations that there is a conspiracy at work here.

I also
> suggested that if you don't like the running of the organization you can
> always put your money where your mouth is and run a campaign on the
> issue(s).
>
> And it would fail.
More importantly, running for committee on such a single issue really would
be destructive.

My remarks have been to simply holding up a mirror on a small but prevalent
perception of the process so far.

I DO like the way the org is run.
My disagreement on a single issue should not be misconstrued as being
judgemental of the entire org.

As I have made clear many times before.
The current committee deserves medals all round for the commitment and
effort that goes into Linux Conf .
Apart from that I would single out the sponsorship process and Ada
initiatives as being possibly the most enlightened and endearing works in
the last couple of years.
Be proud!
More importantly, I call on you all to stop taking things like this
personally.
Your better than that!

I am not afraid or too proud to apologise for any offence caused, but do
wish to remind you all that opinions and perception management are
important.



> > You win, we lose. End of argument. Making this decision via the
> > committee without a vote, even though the constitution seems to allow
> > it, is simply thumbing your nose at the freedoms we are all meant to
> > support.
>
> So there's no point in discussing this with you because you've basically
> ignored Peter's email? NO CHANGE IS BEING MADE WITHOUT A VOTE. If people
> don't vote for a change - either in the initial ballots to short-list a
> name (which includes the "No name change" option) then nothing happens.
> If then a short-listed name is found THEN an SGM has to be held to
> ratify the choice. You have THREE ballots - a choice, a run-off and the
> SGM to oppose the change.  Exactly how much more democratic can this be?
>
>
Well I missed that post, and if this is the process then I stand corrected.
It would have been much easier to point this out in response to my first
posts?

Is there a perm link where this process has been spelled out or is it only
in a list post?

Rgds
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/attachments/20120715/2e7e414b/attachment-0001.htm