[Linux-aus] Communication and conferences.
Marcus Herstik
marcus at herstik.com
Mon Oct 17 22:56:00 AEDT 2022
Hi Anne,
That is a great question and one I am considering.
But let me ask this - How can 5 of 7 members run a conference under the
"auspices" of Linux Australia and not call it the Linux Australia
Conference?
They have set up a complete hub and spoke system for conferences, eerily
similar to LCA and yet it is not the LCA?
So far we have the President, Vice-President, Secretary and 2 non-exec
council members organising the EO conference.
In fact there are only 2 members of the team not part of council, and
one is ex-council.
That's rather suspicious and there is definitely be a conflict of
interest or a change in direction of the LCA that has "parted ways with
the community". There are also questions regarding the IP (Intellectual
Property) and the duty of care they have to the organisation and its
assets - being the brand and reputation of the LCA.
Let me take a page out of the LA Councils book and say that I will
advise you in the next few weeks (haha). Truly I will have more in about
2 or 3 weeks.
What may be best is to also ask - What do other members want and think?
I've been very vocal so I am happy to take any suggestions (publicly or
privately) before I put forward too much.
To that end I have created a questionnaire to help determine what could
be done. It will be active for about 2 weeks and will take about 15-20
minutes but much is optional.
See it here https://bit.ly/3eBse4t
Members can also email me directly instead if they want.
Note - all information will be destroyed once the next AGM occurs and
the anonymised results will be provided to council.
Why can you trust me? I am an academic at Southern Cross University
(amongst other things) and have developed it so that it should pass
ethics approval if I was to put it forward for a "real" study.
It wouldn't pass statistical analysis for a journal but I'm looking for
sentiment, not repeatability. I can provide more reasons why you should
trust me if you ask privately or you can wait for the next AGM and
request for nominations as I intend to run.
#######
Some things to consider before or instead of doing the questionnaire.
#######
Meeting Minutes
===============
I must note that the Linux.org.au news section, where meeting minutes
have been posted, has not been updated with recent minutes. I can see
there has been a lot of work on our behalf early in the year and I am
appreciative of this, especially as they are (were?) meeting every 2
(two) weeks.
It was last updated on 28th August 2022 with some of this years council
meeting minutes, being the first 6 from the 2nd February 2022 to 27th
April 2022.
Note - the meeting on 27th April 2022 (the last one uploaded) mentions
"Open Source AU conference conceptual planning kickoff". This is the
only mention and nothing updated since.
It appears this is where the issue is starting, however it is not called
"Everything Open".
October 2021 to Jan 2022's minutes were uploaded on the 14/15 Jan 2022.
Feb 2021 to October 2021 minutes were batch uploaded on October 3rd
2021. This is the Linux Council that took over in Jan/Feb 2021.
Prior to this meeting minutes were published shortly after the meeting.
Suggestions to procedures
=========================
So as you have requested I provide some concrete suggestions here goes:
I'm not necessarily in favour of cancelling EO.
It does appear to me to be a little suspicious that a group that run
Linux Australia on behalf of it's members (the LA Council) appear, by
your words and by simple analysis, to be also running a conference that
is specifically NOT the LCA. So this is what needs to be addressed.
Therefore I think -
1) the council should announce an AGM for very soon. In fact the
process of organising should start now and do it ASAP.
2) the council members need to declare their affiliation/involvement
with the new conference. That may be redundant as we know that 5 of 7
are organising it.
3) the council need to explain how this conference is so different to
LCA and could not be done under the banner of LCA. Otherwise they are in
the envious position of violating their duty to the organisation as the
IP of the LCA has strong recognition and they may have wilfully or
negligently destroying the IP with another similar conference.
4) the council must release the meeting minutes where this new
conference was decided to be run.
5) the council need to provide the meeting minutes where the previous
bids have been decided. This may be redundant now but more information
needed.
6) the council (or new council assuming point 1 is done in a short time)
needs to ensure that processes exist so that in future this kind of
thing does not happen. How?
a) Firstly the council can not CREATE a conference on their own behalf
without advising the members.
b) Secondly, meeting minutes must be uploaded within 7 days of the
meeting that has confirmed previous meeting minutes. (In other words
after every meeting the previous meetings minutes are published.)
c) Thirdly, conflicts of interest need to be advised to the council and
if more than 2 members (30%) have an interest in any item then those
members must either abstain from voting and deliberations. Alternatively
the item can be postponed until the members are not part of the item to
be discussed or not part of the LA Council. (This is because 5 people is
a quorum and therefore more than 2 can pass resolutions.)
(d) Item c does not become an issue for Linux Conference Australia as
the official event of Linux Australia. If the official event is to
change it must be voted for by the members.
How does that sound Anne?
Concrete enough for you and the Council?
For Matt - they are supposed to work on our behalf.
I believe I have provided a response but happy to revisit if you can
point something else out.
#######
Remember - Questionnaire at https://bit.ly/3eBse4t
Members can also email me directly instead.
#####
I have also been informed privately by one member that they are unable
to post... but I am unable to confirm this. If true this is a worrying
development.
It may just be an issue with subscription not matching the email being
posted from, but they claim to have checked that.
Let me state that my look at the minutes has shown the hard work the
council have completed and I am disappointed that a minor change would
have stopped all this.
Regards,
Marcus
On 2022-10-17 10:16, Anne wrote:
> Hi Marcus
>
> I understand you're unhappy about the way OE was announced. I can't see
> how continually questioning the people who are bankrolling OE is going
> to achieve anything. What's happened has happened, and can't be undone
> or changed. Given the people concerned are volunteers, with a day job
> and a life to fit in as well, it's not surprising some members consider
> communication lacking. Corporates who pay people to communicate with
> the public full time suffer from that problem too.
>
> Perhaps you could explain what you'd like to see happen next? What
> actions can be taken to address your concerns?
>
> That question applies to anyone else who is also unhappy. Rather than
> obsess about the past, let's work out how to fix this and move on.
>
> Personally, I am sad that LCA 23 is not happening. I hope LCA 24 can
> proceed, and that there are some people out there somewhere now in the
> early stages of working out how they'd run one - though I realise time
> is getting short for that.
>
> I am pleased someone stepped up and volunteered to run an
> LCA-lookalike. And that's what I consider OE to be. Yet another
> conference bankrolled and supported by LA - not LCA but modelled on it
> so those of us who enjoy LCA don't miss out entirely. I don't see how
> supporting yet another open source conference changes the direction of
> LA - it's what LA has been doing "forever". Will OE "replace" LCA? I
> don't know, my crystal ball isn't working. It depends on what the
> community actively supports. Perhaps 2024 will see a viable proposal
> for an LCA, and not for another OE. Or perhaps for another OE and not
> LCA. Or perhaps proposals for both.
>
> The fact that at least some of the organisers of OE happen to be LA
> council members is in one way coincidence. In another it's not - those
> who run for council are clearly more willing and able to help our
> community than others, so it's not surprising they step up when no one
> else does. My thanks to those people.
>
> I look forward to reading what concrete actions could be taken to
> address people's concerns. Though I would not be in favour of
> cancelling OE. ;-)
>
> Cheers,
> Anne.
>
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 at 09:43, Marcus Herstik via linux-aus
> <linux-aus at lists.linux.org.au> wrote:
>
> No offence to the people who work hard and do the work of running the
> LA.
> However it appears to me they have gone a direction some members do not
> approve and have taken the reigns and pushed the organisation in a
> particular direction.
> See notes below.
>
> On 17 Oct 2022, at 12:39 am, Joel Addison <joel at addison.net.au> wrote:
>
> On 16 Oct 2022, at 22:07, Marcus Herstik via linux-aus
> <linux-aus at lists.linux.org.au> wrote:
>
> Let me see if I can provide the timeline and point out why some people
> may be a little upset with the lack of communication from Linux
> Australia (LA), the lack of a Linux Conference Australia (LCA) and the
> new EverythingOpen (EO) conference.
> While I have looked at the LA mail list archive from December 2021 to
> now to ensure a full grasp and also so that I am not forgetting
> something I may have dismissed in haste there is no guarantee provided.
> You can check the list archive yourself.
>
> On June 12th there was an email asking about what is happening with LCA
> 2023. It was advised that the "LA council have been discussing this
> over the past few months". They'll LA council would have an
> announcement in the next few weeks.
>
> Nothing else material except for the comment by Steven Ellis on June 13
> that he hoped "something is going on elsewhere we don't know about."
> Yet nothing is said.
>
> Again LA was asked between July 26-30th about LCA for 2023.
> After a brief reply and a pithy response commenting about "so many
> dedicated volunteers helping" and after advising to "submit patches"
> there was a retort that this has been requested for at least a month
> and it was noted that there was no request for assistance and a bit
> more discussion without any information.
>
> I must note that there was a few emails regarding the time and effort
> needed to put on an LCA that people may find enlightening. (See Paul
> Wayper on June 13 and Kathy Reid on July 30th.)
>
> I might also note that at this time there have been no calls for an LCA
> 2024 so far.
>
> August 3rd we got an update that it was close to resolved and start
> sounding out for speakers.
>
> September 30th - Rip/Vale LCA email starts this type of discussion.
>
> I am happy to be proven wrong but I can see no official update on LCA
> provided. After the RIP/Vale email then an announcement about EO was
> posted.
>
> It has since been said that the unacceptable bid (if it may be called
> that) was advised. However without access to the committee meeting
> minutes it is difficult to see what happened. (I might note that the
> Constitution allows for asking for these under section 40(1)(a), but
> don't take my word on it - read it yourself)
>
> So when some members state there is a lack of transparency, it is hard
> to disagree.
> This is because there were multiple requests for information and
> despite assurances to the contrary nothing was provided, at least
> publicly. I certainly can not point to any communication despite others
> having multiple attempts at asking what is happening.
> There was no further requests for help or for people to put a
> conference on, nor does there appear to be advice that an alternative
> was being investigated by the council.
>
> What are the members supposed to think?
> We are told we don't step up and we need to be grateful for online
> conferences despite the fact that some people want to go back to F2F
> conferences, to the dismay of others.
>
> So it appears either we (the members) were forgotten, lied to or misled
> that information would be forthcoming, or something else happened. The
> question is what happened?
>
> So why are people upset?
> Because what could be perceived as a very similar conference, sponsored
> by LA (whatever that means - could one assume financial assistance?)
> that has some similar categories to the LCA miniconfs and potentially
> taking the place of the LCA.
> The website specifically says "Linux Australia has decided to run this
> event to provide a space for a cross-section of the open technologies
> communities to come together in person."
> It also says "The presentations cover a broad range of subject areas,
> including Linux, open source software, open hardware, open data, open
> government, open GLAM (galleries, libraries, archives and museums), to
> name a few."
>
> I'm sorry but it looks darn similar. It even states it uses the LA
> code of conduct with "All attendees of Everything Open 2023 agree to be
> bound by the Linux Australia Code of Conduct."
>
> When was it decided that LCA would be dropped in favour of EO?
> Is there a team that has decided they don't want to do LCA but still
> want the same thing so they made EO?
> I'm very confused by this conference.
> So is this LCA2023 by another name?
>
> If not, why not?
>
> And why has there been no call for 2024?
>
> Just my 2c and an attempt at timeline and sorting out.
> Regards,
> Marcus Herstik
>
> Linux Australia has decided to hold Everything Open in 2023. As you
> have seen, there is much overlap, because it is the natural evolution
> of what we have seen with linux.conf.au.
So basically it is LCA by another name.
> Everything Open will still cover everything we have seen at LCA,
> something I think you've picked up on given the large overlap with
> announcement and website content. It is designed to be inclusive to all
> members of the free and open source technologies communities, giving
> people from all of the areas that Linux Australia represents an avenue
> to come together to share knowledge. There will still be other
> conferences auspiced by Linux Australia in 2023 and beyond, focusing on
> specific communities, e.g. PyCon AU, DrupalSouth, WordCamps, etc.
But no LCA. Got it.
> The 3 day duration of EO2023 is the same as the past two online
> conferences, given it is the first event in a few years with an in
> person component,
Except for the one that was submitted but rejected.
> and that there is still uncertainty around what might be going on in
> the world, how many people are able and willing to travel, etc.
Ok. So what? Why was the 2022 bid not suggested earlier to consider
moving to 2023?
> There is a longer overview on the base website:
> https://everythingopen.au/news/introducing-everything-open/
> We will also have more to say as we go - we have only done the first
> announcement so far.
From this page " It is with all of this in mind that Linux Australia has
decided to organise Everything Open 2023, a new conference that embraces
all facets of open technology".
Congratulations - it seems you have declared this the new LCA.
Who made this decision?
Who is this group that have organised EO?
> As is usual, the Call for Volunteers will go out a bit later on.
> Getting ahead of the announcement, we are looking at opening this in
> November. Feel free to mark your calendar to look out for this.
>
> All subcommittees and events that are auspiced by Linux Australia are
> required to have a Code of Conduct in place. Linux Australia has a Code
> of Conduct, and this is the one that most end up adopting. Given
> Everything Open is auspiced by Linux Australia, it shouldn't be a
> surprised that the Code of Conduct is shared.
>
> As for 2024, Council has been occupied with getting the 2023 conference
> announced, because we thought it was more important to get 2023 sorted
> before looking to future years. Of course we haven't forgotten that we
> also need to get the ball rolling for 2024 and beyond, and there will
> be further details sent out once they are ready.
>
> Regards,
>
> Joel Addison
So it seems council made a specific and direct decision to create a
conference different but similar to LCA.
Can I ask why this decision was made?
Please also answer the in line questions.
Regards,
Marcus Herstik
M: 0405-569-466
A: P.O. Box 2443, Burleigh Waters, QLD, 4220
_______________________________________________
linux-aus mailing list
linux-aus at lists.linux.org.au
http://lists.linux.org.au/mailman/listinfo/linux-aus
To unsubscribe from this list, send a blank email to
linux-aus-unsubscribe at lists.linux.org.au
--
Coherent Digital Suite 9, 1176 Nepean Hwy
Cheltenham Vic 3192
Phone: 03 9452 6968
Web: https://www.coherentdigital.com.au/
Email: info at coherentdigital.com.au
More information about the linux-aus
mailing list