[Linux-aus] LA Name Change - the process

[Russell Coker]

On Sun, 15 Jul 2012, James Polley <jamezpolley at gmail.com> wrote:
> But I think there's a bigger issue that would prevent this: the vast
> majority of LAs funding comes from LCA. All the rest of the activities LA
> does are funded from the profits of LCA. If the LA council were to decide
> not to run an LCA, it wouldn't be a matter of diverting funding; it would
> be foregoing funding.

SPI manages the funds for the Debian project (and many other projects) in 
trust.  So while SPI has a significant amount of money stored for Debian it 
can't be used for other projects.  This arrangement has worked well for years.

Now such a funding arrangement could include some provision that a certain 
percentage could be used for other projects and managing the organisation.  
For example if 10% of the money from LCA was able to be used for other things 
(sponsoring new conferences etc) then there would always be at least 90% of 
the money in reserve for the next LCA.  I think that with SPI this is a 
contractual issue with the member organisations, but as LA currently owns LCA 
it would probably be an issue of the committee making a resolution - but I 
guess there's nothing stopping someone from proposing a constitutional 
amendment about the use of funds.

> > Please understand, I am not trying to be a smart ass just for the sake of
> > it here. I just cant grasp WHY we need to change the name, nor shake the
> > feeling that somehow in all of this Linux Australia could in some way
> > become diluted.
> 
> I think it's fair to say that the feedback from the community has been
> very strong on the fact that the Linux Australia brand is strong and
> needs to be maintained. Many people have suggested forming an LA
> sub-committee of the newly-named umbrella organisation (to go alongside
> existing subcommittees such as SLUG, LOGIN, PYCON-AU, Wordcamp AU etc) to
> ensure that linux continues to get the focus it deserves. I think the
> council would probably be supportive of such a move, if anyone were to step
> up and run the sub-committee.

I think that one of the benefits of the proposed change is having two separate 
groups of people involved, one doing financial things and another advocating 
Linux.  I'm sure that there are lots of good Linux advocates who lack the 
skills or interest in managing financial issues and lots of people who are 
good at financial issues related to free software who aren't particularly 
interested in Linux.

I wouldn't consider running for the LA committee at this time.  I don't 
believe that I have any particular skills at the things that LA is making it's 
core mission at the moment.  If however there was a Linux Australia sub-
committee that was just about promoting Linux then I would consider running 
for it.

-- 
My Main Blog         http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog    http://doc.coker.com.au/