<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.28.3">
</HEAD>
<BODY>
On Thu, 2012-04-26 at 01:40 -0400, James Turnbull wrote:<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
> So, you think that sponsors are NOT going to expect you explain who
> <insert some open source generalised name> organisation is? You're
> kidding yourself, come back, reality needs you.
>
Chris has spent more than enough time - by my count 20 odd emails worth
- - emailing his issue in explicit detail. Sticking our heads in the sand
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
Actually, I couldn't care if he'd sent 200 emails, he's saying much the exact same thing every time, indicates he is desperate for a name change for his POV, if he is so concerned as he had made it clear he is, then his organisation should become their own legal entity, it is the only way there will be an end to "Who is this third party".<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
denying his perspective seems both arrogant and offensive.
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
Ah the old offensive and arrogant line, thanks, but if I want childish and battle-losing comments like that, I'll pop on to undernet and piss off some 16yo kid.<BR>
<BR>
and It maters not where his head is, if my business donates/sponsors something, I will want to know about it and to whom I'm paying if their name is different, and to think that someone would stay clear simply because the name "linux" is in it, is in itself arrogance, and I'd be asking myself, WTF would I want to do business with them in the first place.<BR>
<BR>
If you want the kill off the roots, and have a name change and restructure, go for it, but relinquish "Linux Australia", so the name can be snapped up and used as it was originally intended to be.<BR>
<BR>
Its a shame, as someone else pointed out, that this same energy was not spent promoting linux.<BR>
<BR>
</BODY>
</HTML>