Re: [Linux-aus] Representation

[Anand Kumria <wildfire@progsoc.uts.edu.au>]

On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 07:06:47PM +1000, Tony Nugent wrote:
> On Mon Feb 03 2003 at 15:46, Robert Thomson wrote:
> 
[snip]
> 
> Clear things up?  No, not at all.  At least not for me.
> 
> I'm a relative lone voice in the wilderness, and totally bemused at
> what has apparently been going on.  (And not going on).
> 
> A scan through my own mail archives shows that there was no
> announcement about the AGM on this list, nor was there any
> information posted here about who was standing, nor this crazy
> prerequesite that I would have HAD to have been there in person to
> participate either as a nominee for a position on its committee or
> to qualify to vote for those nominated.

So basically we were in the position where we could:
	- keep LA a closed group
	- open LA up to many more people

We choose the latter one; however we weren't able to come up with a
reasonably good solution of how you arrange for people who are
interested in being involved in LA (like, for example, Daniel Stone) but
who are current members and who are not going to the conference.

So we decided the only reasonable course of action would be to notify
existing members (all 5) and have them renew and have membership granted 
for gratis to people attending LCA.

> Going to a linux conference should NOT be any sort of requirement
> for either elegability either as an office bearer or for voting
> rights.

I agree; however it was/is a hard problem to solve. Certainly none of us
at the time had the energy to devote to solving it. With a substanially
larger membership the problem becomes imperative to solve.

As Pia, I believe, mentioned it is something we will be discussing and
trying to address as soon as practicable.

> If/when I do apply for "normal membership" of Linux Australia (and
> how many "normal" members are there?) then I would expect that a
> much more democratic process will be put into place as a matter of
> urgency so that gaining a position on its committee is based on more
> than a simple physical show of hands by those lucky enough (and in
> many cases those economically privileged enough) to have been in the
> right place at the right time to have their hand counted.

Absolutely. I was less than thrilled at having to decline the membership
of someone who was (hopefully is) so obviously interested in LA.

Some things to work out are:
	- what should membership cost? Currently the Committee have the
	  power to vary the cost otherwise it defaults to $20.
	- what, if any, "extras" should membership offer you?
	- should we/do we need to have membership cards?
	- etc.

> Although I note from the above web pages that the issue of
> (paid) membership is apparently now firmly on the agenda.

Not neccessarily. There are plenty of valid reasons to have membership
cost nothing.

Regards,
Anand

-- 
 `` We are shaped by our thoughts, we become what we think.
 When the mind is pure, joy follows like a shadow that never
 leaves. '' -- Buddha, The Dhammapada