Re: [Linux-aus] Representation

[Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au>]

On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 02:32:21PM +0800, Leon Brooks wrote:
> >> The professional organisations also need Australia-wide representation,
> >> to deal with Australia-wide corporations (as do the LUGs for dealing with
> >> Feds as well as State gummints)
> > I've seen a number of claims that LA's not about "regional interests"
> > or "Queensland interests" -- surely state government policies would thus
> > be out of its purview?
> Generally - except as influence by Federal politics. 

Well, what you said was "the LUGs / need Australia-wide representation
to deal with / State gummints".

Which, to be perfectly honest, seems quite reasonable: being able to
draw on the experience of other states with state government would be
the first thing I'd want if I were trying to do that sort of thing;
and Linux Australia would be a very useful forum for that, and being
able to say you're representing a national body that's already assisted
a different state do a similar thing seems all to the good.

But with your added proviso, I can't make any sense out of what you're
saying. It seems like you're saying we don't need Australia-wide
representation for dealing with the States in general, just to clean up
whatever mess has been created in Canberra.

> > Which is one of the reasons to ensure that "we" remain the LUGs, who
> > are the OSS-style of individuals, on the ground and at the front lines...
> Is LA any different? If you want an ivory tower, you'll have to bring the 
> ivory.

I don't know. I see a lot of "we want to insulate ourselves from the LUGs"
and "we want to go talk to the politicians in Canberra and the vendors and
wear ties and dress up like important people"; together, that seems like
it has a fair chance of making LA end up different, even if it isn't yet.

I know I'm being inverted to what everyone else is saying, but I'd much
rather see the LUGs start dressing up in ties if that's what's important,
and have LA just act to help that along ("National Linux in Business
Open Day: Wander along to your local LUG and sip a nice shiraz with the
hax0rs!"), than go off on its own.

This is largely in contradiction to the charter statement ``Linux
Australia will work with User Groups, Clubs and other Linux organisations
as a peer.'' Linux Australia simply isn't a peer to the LUGs in the
obvious sense -- it has no chance of developing any local flavour because
it's _not_ local; and it can't really do anything directly with people
because there are just too many people, spread too widely for that to
work. What it can do is work with the LUGs to achieve its goals, but it
has to be at least partly subordinate to the LUGs for that to make any
real sense at all.

> > I assume someone'll call me delusional if cross-over between Linux hackers
> > and Linux suits is really a no-no, but it seems like a good idea to me.
> If both sides are prepared for an event like that, fine. Day-to-day, it will 
> work for a minority of each, but not for a mjority of each community.

That seems pretty much the definition of a SIG to me; and if most people
are part of the PLUG community already anyway then that's perfectly great.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

  ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- 
        you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''