[Linux-aus] How did non-event sub-comittees get formed?

Sun Dec 4 16:52:06 AEDT 2016

On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 11:47 AM, David Lloyd <lloy0076 at adam.com.au> wrote:

>
>
> A strict reading of the constitution would indicate that provided the
> instrument of delegation to a sub-committee does not delegate the council’s
> power to delegate its power, or otherwise delegate a power that any
> relevant law requires the elected committee to perform, it may do so (the
> Linux Australia Constitution (“Constitution”), 21 contained in section 3).
> Whilst I realise that policies and procedures need to be in place, there’s
> actually no *legal* reason why it couldn’t delegate any of its powers to
> a sub-committee so long as it fell within furthering the aims and
> objectives of Linux Australi (“Constitution”, 13 (a, b, c)).
>
>
>
> The power to do so was in the original constitution as approved by the
> association.
>
>
>
> On a quick look at version 2 of the subcommittee policy (here
> <https://github.com/linuxaustralia/constitution_and_policies/blob/master/subcommittee_policy_v2.md>),
> I’d suggest renaming that (git mv) to “conference subcommittee policy” and
> creating a new “subcommittee policy”. In fact, if one wanted to go OOP
> style, one could gut part of the “conference subcommittee policy” into the
> “subcommittee policy” as I’m sure there would be an overlap between, say, a
> “Linux Australia – Australian Government Advocacy Subcommittee” and the
> “LCA Subcommittee”.
>
>
>
> (To be concrete, V2 of the subcommittee policy talks about running a
> conference. A possible advocacy subcommittee might not even want to run a
> conference.)
>
>
>
> But, to continue our Star Wars analogy, as the commander mentions to Lord
> Vader, “The Emperor asks the impossible – we need more men.” (I’m sorry,
> that’s a quote – it’s probably against Linux Australia’s inclusion
> policy/policies to stipulate “men” but it seems that misogyny lives on in a
> galaxy far, far away). That, I think, is the crux of the problem; Linux
> Australia doesn’t seem to have a governance issue as it once did many years
> ago before the ratification of the original association. It never really
> did but prior to then its governance fell too strongly on one or perhaps
> two people’s shoulders, a situation I’m sure we’d all agree wasn’t fair to
> those people – and let me make it clear those people did a very good job.
>
>
>
> In fact, I’m not sure why an advocacy subcommittee has to be as formal as
> described in the constitution itself. Sure, to satisfy the legal definition
> you’d probably need at least two members – although three is probably a
> more workable number – and in case the Council was worried about what they
> might actually do in its name they could fairly much neuter it by saying,
> “You can’t do anything BUT advise us to do SOMETHING on this range of
> SOMETHINGS.” So an advocacy committee could come to the conclusion that “LA
> should host lemonade stands outside each parliamentarian’s office” which, I
> suppose, the Council might reject. Or they might suggest “Linux Australia
> allocates [some funds] to work with [some professional marketers] to [do
> something]” and maybe then Linux Australia might delegate more authority to
> the subcommittee and make it more formal – especially if its busy doing
> other things like running multiple events, dealing with this and that.
>
To be clear, I completely agree that there's no particular reason why
people who want to do a thing (eg, advocacy) actually need to formally form
a subcommittee.

The v2 policy does describe some of the things that subcommittees get -
delegated access to bank accounts with money in them, and legal authority
to negotiate contracts. If you're running an event, running it as an LA
subcommittee gives you coverage under LA's insurance policies.

But a lot of tasks don't actually need any of that. If you wanted to write
a blog post, or give a talk at a LUG, or a host of other advocacy actions,
forming a subcommittee is almost certainly overkill.

If a lot of people were doing advocacy and wanted to have a coordinating
group and some dedicated funding, that might be the point where it's worth
creating a subcommittee.

>
> I think:
>
>
>
> 1.       Fix the subcommittee policy;
>
> 2.       Garner the enthusiasm demonstrated to create a subcommittee to
> perform “advocacy” (or some other worthy objective)…
>
>
>
> …is the wrong order to fix things at the moment. I’d suggest:
>
>
>
> 1.       Find a reason for an “advocacy subcommittee” to exist, make one
> up even if the initial delegation is to “define its role amongst its
> members and make a proposal within 2 weeks to formalise what powers are
> needed to perform that role”;
>
> 2.       Fix the subcommittee policy.
>
>
>
> Or, as Queen Amidala herself sort of said, “I did not come here … to
> discuss things in a committee.”
>
>
>
>
>
> DSL
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
>
> > From: linux-aus [mailto:linux-aus-bounces at lists.linux.org.au] On Behalf
>
> > Of Kathy Reid
>
> > Sent: Saturday, 3 December 2016 6:56 PM
>
> > To: linux-aus at lists.linux.org.au
>
> > Subject: Re: [Linux-aus] How did non-event sub-comittees get formed?
>
> >
>
> > At the risk of sounding like a bureaucrat (let alone a Sith Lord!), I'd
> just
>
> > like to provide some background here.
>
> >
>
> > The legal basis for Subcommittees is S(21) of the LA Constitution [1]
>
> > which in essence allows the Committee (Council) to delegate powers to
>
> > a Subcommittee - the instruments for doing so - such as policies - are
> left
>
> > up to the organisation.
>
> >
>
> > This seems like a great opportunity for someone to have a look at v1 and
>
> > v2 of our Subcommittee policy and see if one or both need revision for
>
> > non-event Subcommittees, and propose changes / amendments /
>
> > additions to our policy suite [2]. For example, Chris Neugebauer did
>
> > some excellent work taking v1 as the basis and producing v2 a couple of
>
> > years ago to ensure that events have some long-term oversight, even if
>
> > they're run by different teams year to year.
>
> >
>
> > Do we need revisions to our non-event Subcommittee policy to have
>
> > more effective Subcommittees and better facilitate people making
>
> > contributions on Subcommittees (and thanks too Russell for your interest
>
> > here)?
>
> >
>
> > Let's turn the conversation into an action item or productive outcome.
>
> >
>
> > Kind regards,
>
> > Kathy
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > [1] https://linux.org.au/constitution
>
> >
>
> > [2] https://github.com/linuxaustralia/constitution_and_policies
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > On 04/12/16 10:30, Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> > > On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 03:10:03PM +1100, James Polley wrote:
>
> > >>     We need subcommittees for things such as Linux advocacy.  I will
>
> > consider
>
> > >>     volunteering for such a subcommittee.
>
> > >> I was about to respond by pointing to
>
> > >> https://github.com/linuxaustralia/
>
> > >> constitution_and_policies/blob/master/subcommittee_policy_v2.md
>
> > - but
>
> > >> on closer reading, that policy seems to be only for event
>
> > subcommittees.
>
> > > The treasury subctte is under the v2 policy according to
>
> > >
>
> > >   https://linux.org.au/treasury-and-finance-subcommittee
>
> > >
>
> > > I thought I remembered something about the v1 policy being kept
>
> > around
>
> > > for non-events (heh), but I can't recall any details.
>
> > >
>
> > > Cheers,
>
> > > aj
>
> > >
>
> > > _______________________________________________
>
> > > linux-aus mailing list
>
> > > linux-aus at lists.linux.org.au
>
> > > http://lists.linux.org.au/mailman/listinfo/linux-aus
>
> >
>
> > _______________________________________________
>
> > linux-aus mailing list
>
> > linux-aus at lists.linux.org.au
>
> > http://lists.linux.org.au/mailman/listinfo/linux-aus
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-aus mailing list
> linux-aus at lists.linux.org.au
> http://lists.linux.org.au/mailman/listinfo/linux-aus
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/attachments/20161204/c0c54e11/attachment-0001.html>