mikal at stillhq.com
Mon Jan 5 04:42:02 UTC 2004
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 07:52:51AM +1100, Michael Still wrote:
> > I believe there is a lot of capacity for greater cooperation between AUUG
> > and Linux Australia. I think that being on both committees is an
> > advantage, and wouldn't stop me from doing the right thing for Linux
> > Australia, or AUUG individually.
> Hrm, I notice Andrew Cowie's also on the AUUG board. Is this a coup
Yes, Andrew has recently joined the AUUG national board as well.
> Alternatively, if having one person on both boards would be a win,
> would two people on both boards be a bigger win? Why, or why not? I
> guess I'm not really seeing how having overlapping exec cttes is going
> to do anything particularly impressive. Educate me?
I'm not suggesting that it will change the world, just that the two groups
have naturally overlapping member bases, and it is good for them to both
be across what the other group is doing. Imagine a world in which LA was
promoting open source, and AUUG was saying something contradictory (not
that that would happen, but you get the idea).
I should also point out that I am not saying that the groups should both
live at the beck and call of each other... They should just have a
There is no gaurantee that either Andrew or myself will be elected to LA.
My nomination stands on it's own though -- I have contributed to open
source in this country for many years, help organise the Canberra LUG (we
have no committee), talk at lots of events, and have experience working
with national unix representative bodies.
Sorry for the waffle, does that answer the question?
Michael Still (mikal at stillhq.com) | "All my life I've had one dream,
http://www.stillhq.com | to achieve my many goals"
UTC + 11 | -- Homer Simpson
More information about the linux-aus