mikal at stillhq.com
Wed Jan 7 15:26:41 UTC 2004
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Anand Kumria wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 07:35:34AM +1100, Michael Still wrote:
> > On Sun, 4 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 07:52:51AM +1100, Michael Still wrote:
> > > 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).
> Well I imagine a world where each organisation is capable of speaking for
> itself without having to 'see what the cool kids are doing'. LA and AUUG
> need to be independent enough so that they can say contradictory things
> if the need ever arises.
Yes, but they operate in similar circles, and therefore making a
contribution will appeal to a largely similar group of people.
Independance of the two groups is an issue of conflict of interest and
accountability more than anything else.
> > 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
> > friendly relationship.
> That doesn't neccessitate sharing of committee members though.
Correct. All I originally intended to convey was that I thought the two
groups working together was a useful goal, and that I happen to also be on
a committee in AUUG land. Given it appears to be an issue for people, I
thought it was useful to point that out at the start.
I don't have a platform of "both organizations should be run by the same
people sitting on two committees".
> > 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?
> No but it does bring up other ones.
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