[Linux-aus] LA Name Change - the process

[James Polley]

On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Brent Wallis <brent.wallis at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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?
>

I think it's reasonable for people to assume you've read the whole thread
before you choose to respond. In this case, the points you missed were in
the very first post in the thread; so even if we assume you didn't bother
to read the responses, I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume you read
at least the first post.

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

The list is archived on the web -
http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/2012-July/019836.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/attachments/20120715/1931d123/attachment.htm