On Thu, 2004-01-08 at 23:19, Jeff Waugh wrote: > This is a specific case, and one that I too am not happy about (I just > hadn't expressed that publically yet). Here's why: In previous years, the > tradition was to select the location *at* the conference, so everyone could > sit down and have a good chat about it, and nut it out together. That didn't Hopefully my previous mail explaining some of the reasons in making the decision early helps clear up the non-happiness. > I honestly think the real solution to your problems is to fix the openness > and transparency problems the committee has had this year. I understand that > it may be hard to do in the first year of newfound openness (LA was > previously either mired in public flamewars, not doing anything at all, or a > very closed non-community organisation). It's hard particularly when LA has > had to rebuild itself from square one due to the mistakes made in the past. I think (and hope) that at least this year we've made a fairly big dent in the problem - and although not a perfect solution, it's pretty darn good. While there is progress still to be made - how far we've come (as you illustrate) is pretty impressive. > If the elected committee can fix that this year, LA will totally rock. I > think that's the source of your problems. Well, as well as you QLD dudes not > getting involved in the community enough. :-) I know both Pia and myself (and others) intend (well, want to, assuming we're re-elected) to keep fixing these problems and make LA rock so hard you'll only find it in the "heavy" section :) -- Stewart Smith (stewart@linux.org.au) Vice President, Linux Australia
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part