On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 01:49:13PM +1000, Anthony Towns scrawled: > Seriously, you guys have two choices: sit around yourselves, make up what > you want LA to be, then see if anyone supports you; or go around the > LUGs, work out what they want things they can use LA for, work out how > to ensure that LA keeps listening to the LUGs throughout its existance > as its _first_ priority, and follow through on that. > > Doing the former will work, but it'll make it much harder to get good > ideas (even the seven "best" people aren't a match for hundreds of people > simultaneouslt seeking improvements), it'll make it much harder for you to > realistically claim to represent Linux in Australia and get the political > benefits that go with that, and it'll make it more likely for other > people to start building or making use of other national representative > bodies when they find themselves dissatisfied with LA's focus. > > I think it's indicative that all the board members, and board members' > SOs, that've spoken have all indicated that, as far as they're concerned, > there's already a solution to the problem: a representative sub-ctte; > and that further discussion or consultation is thus not really relevant. In my experience with LA, they've been excellent at communicating. I'm on the LUV committee, and LA came to us very early on in the piece, telling us what they were planning to do, and seeking feedback, suggestions, and what we would want out of LA. No complaints from me on that front, only compliments. -- Daniel Stone <dstone@trinity.unimelb.edu.au> Developer, Trinity College, University of Melbourne
Attachment:
pgp00024.pgp
Description: PGP signature