[Linux-aus] LUV considering joining LA

[James Polley]

> On 24 Aug 2013, at 2:40 pm, "Daniel Jitnah" <djitnah at greenwareit.com.au> wrote:
> 
> 
> The assumption is that there will be no or less administrative overhead now or in the future in being an LA subctte.

Not just an assumption. LUV will be the 3rd or 4th (I've lost count slightly) body to take this step (I presided over SLUG becoming the first body to do this, so feel free to take my words with as many grains of salt as you feel are warranted).

Not just administrative overhead - there's a direct financial benefit. SLUGs expenses were running to around $800/year, from memory - mostly due to needing insurance, but also maintaining a PO Box and a bank account. Becoming an LA subcommittee gave SLUG more comprehensive insurance for no cost, as all SLUG's events are now covered under LA's existing policy - and LA's policy (I believe, although my knowledge is a few years old and may be stale) includes nice things like volunteer insurance, which SLUG never had.

> But that may not be so, and these may offset what are currently extremely non-onerous overheads anyway and to compare
> with.

Do you have any evidence to support your tenuous assertion that these benefits "may not be so"? Several other groups have already gone through this process and have experienced immediate tangible benefits.

$800/year was quite onerous for SLUG - we had to charge membership fees and had difficulty finding enough people willing to pay. I don't know what the situation is for LUV - I believe they have a much larger member base, so possibly this is less of an issue for LUV.

The other requirements certainly *sound* like they're not very onerous. A public officer and 3ish executive committee members to spend a small amount of time running the organisation, mostly spent preparing for and running a pro-forma AGM. 

In practice... Well, if you truly believe that these duties are not onerous, and you object to LUV taking this step, I'll give you the same challenge I gave people who objected to SLUG taking this step: the best way to prove that you're right, and that the community doesn't want to take this step, would be to win an election to the committee on a platform of maintaining the status quo.

> 
> Cheers,
> Daniel
> 
> 
> n Sat, August 24, 2013 10:06, Lev Lafayette wrote:
>>> 
>>> I would assume this move is purely about efficiency and reducing
>>> overheads in the areas of reporting, insurance, etc.
>> 
>> That's pretty much the argument that has been put up. Lower administrative
>> overhead means more time to do Linux promotion.
>> 
>> --
>> Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GCertPM, MBA
>> mobile:  0432 255 208
>> RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines
>> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> linux-aus mailing list
>> linux-aus at lists.linux.org.au
>> http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/linux-aus
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> linux-aus mailing list
> linux-aus at lists.linux.org.au
> http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/linux-aus