[Linux-aus] LA Name Change - the process

[James Polley]

On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Stephen Walsh <steve at nerdvana.org.au>wrote:

>  On 07/24/2012 01:30 PM, James Polley wrote:
>
> Compare this with the paperwork to create the Parent Organisation Not
>> Called Linux Australia, then moving Linux Australia under PONCLA,
>> shuffling bank accounts around to be owned by relevant orgs, creating
>> new ones, making sure the audit trail is clear for LA getting seed
>> funding from PONCLA for linux.conf.au, but handing back 4 or 5 times
>> that funding to the parent org when it's all done, and this argument
>> doesn't really hold much weight.
>>
>
>  I'm not sure where this process came from. Why wouldn't we just be
> updating the name on our existing account?
>
>
>
> Are you proposing that under the new scheme that each "sub committee" of
> PONCLA won't even have a bank account? Ouch. I feel sorry for the PONCLA
> treasurer.
>

No. That's not how it's done now - the subcommittees that need accounts
already have them. Some (such as SLUG and LOGIN) have no regular expenses
so don't have an account.

Compare this with the paperwork to create the Parent Organisation Not
> Called Linux Australia, then moving Linux Australia under PONCLA,

That's not what is being proposed. No new organisation will be created; the
existing organization will simply register a new trading name and start to
use that.

shuffling bank accounts around to be owned by relevant orgs, creating new
> ones,


I don't understand why bank accounts would need to be shuffled, or why new
accounts need to be created (and even if new accounts need to be created,
it's trivial)

making sure the audit trail is clear for LA getting seed
> funding from PONCLA for linux.conf.au, but handing back 4 or 5 times
> that funding to the parent org when it's all done

I think you're referring to the scenario where Linux Australia is a
sub-committee under PONCLA, and assuming that the LA sub-committee will
pick the winning LCA bid.

Even in that scenario, I don't understand why PONCLA would give funding to
one sub-committee for that sub-committee to give to a different
sub-committee? Wouldn't PONCLA just give the money directly to the LCA
sub-committee, based on advice from the LA sub-committee?


> My point is that you can't argue that creating a new entity and absorbing
> other orgs already with their own bank accounts is less paperwork than
> opening a new bank account for an ongoing event. I've been there and done
> it for LA. Twice. It's not that hard, and not that onerous.
>

As far as I know, no-one is proposing to create a new entity and absorb
other orgs, so I don't see why your point (correct though it is) has any
relevance to this discussion


>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-aus mailing list
> linux-aus at lists.linux.org.au
> http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/linux-aus
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/attachments/20120724/982a587a/attachment.htm