Re: [Linux-aus] State representation on the board

[Jeff Waugh <jdub@perkypants.org>]

<quote who="Anthony Towns">

> That doesn't mean the decision that was made was bad, but it does indicate
> LA's not making use of all the resources it's got available to it, and
> that's worth examining.

"all" of the resources or the "best" resources? I too would prefer to have a
totally kickarse committee, regardless where they're from, than have what
may be a lame committee made up of people who don't really care, but are
there because of their locality. Consider this: You couldn't convince your
other QLD friends to run, so you had to. What if you didn't have time? (And
it could be said that you don't already.) Would we lose a committee member?
Would we have a committee member there who doesn't care?

I want *good* people on the committee, not people who live in certain
places.

> As another perspective, LA's had a minor controversy over publishing its
> minutes over the past six months. For those of us who don't have easy
> access to a board member, that means we've got no idea what LA's been
> doing since about June. Obviously _something's_ happened -- Pia's been
> blogging from Geneva or something for some reason that seems LA related.
> Now, no disrespect to the ctte intended -- that sort of thing happens, but
> while the minutes problem has probably been fixed now, I'd personally
> expect similar blockages in the communication flow in future. Without
> having a local board member and the informal channels that implies, that
> means entire states miss out on any idea what's going on with Linux
> Australia.

While I am quite frustrated with the minutes issue, I don't see how having a
member of the committee in your state would seriously help. It sounds like a
good argument, but it's not entirely logical.

> In summary: we've got a choice, we can either have local involvement in
> Linux Australia in six Australian capital cities, or not.

Involvement is community-centric, not locality-centric. If you want to get
involved, whereever you are, you can. You can be involved in LA through your
LUG and the lug@ list, you can work with LA to do things locally without
being on the committee (the committee does the drudge work to help you, and
that's what they should be about), you can help on the website, help with
national organisation, so on and so on... All of this, without being on the
committee.

Corollary: I am involved in Debian, and I am not a Debian Developer, nor
have a login on a Debian machine, nor have any official leadership post in
the Debian project. My contribution, commitment, interest and involvement is
totally up to me and my energy to do something about it, and it doesn't
matter where Martin lives. *That* is how a community, and I would hope LA,
works.

> Personally, I think as a first step we should increase the number of
> ordinary ctte members to perhaps six or seven, so we don't have to make
> choices like "drop Anand from the committee, or don't have any involvement
> from one of ACT/South Australia/Queensland for a year".

Well, this is precisely a choice that I will be making. I (and I believe,
LA) will benefit far more from a fresh committee member from another state
than I (and I believe, LA) will from Anand continuing on in the committee.
And as a voting member, that is my prerogative. I can make that choice. If I
were unable to make that choice, I'd be pretty annoyed.

- Jeff

-- 
GVADEC 2004: Kristiansand, Norway                    http://2004.guadec.org/
 
    "Not only that, but Google is fast. In fact, it's quite competitive
                          with DNS." - Raph Levien