On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 05:41:21AM +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> No one from the committee actually made it known that there were legal
> issues in the way of providing the community with any information about the
> work of the committee. I pinged you guys a few times, but didn't receive any
> response that indicated the minutes could not be published.
So, for comparison, I bumped into Stewart on IRC a few days ago, and
mentioned something related to LA, and got told roughly what was going
on with the minutes, and that it'd be fixed RSN (as apparently it has
been). Likewise, keeping my ear to the ground made it pretty obvious who
had gotten l.c.a 2005 not long after Hugh announced that someone had.
(Of course, now it's in the LA minutes, so anyone can find out...)
I can't understand why it'd be the case, but maybe I have better luck
with informal channels than Jeff, leading me to value them more highly
than Jeff does? Maybe I'm just a gossip queen.
(Maybe that's a good reason to have _less_ local representation --
you're less likely to annoy one of your local ctte members, and have
them all decide as a consequence to not tell you anything! :)
Theory: formal channels are more effective -- they reach more people,
more quickly; informal channels are more robust -- they don't fail
completely if there are things that shouldn't be talked about, or if
people start getting very busy.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we can.
http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature