Re: [Linux-aus] Can Linux Australia survive?

Bret Busby <bret@busby.net> · Fri Jul 1 14:53:02 2005

On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, Jonathan Oxer wrote:
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 15:06:05 +1000
From: Jonathan Oxer <jon@ivt.com.au>
To: Bret Busby <bret@busby.net>
Cc: linux-aus <linux-aus@linux.org.au>
Subject: Re: [Linux-aus] Can Linux Australia survive?
On Fri, 2005-07-01 at 11:08 +0800, Bret Busby wrote:
overseas, appears to involve paid overseas travel for those involved in
making the decision, is worthy of examination.

Sigh. OK, I see where you're coming from and of course the Committee
needs to be accountable to the LA membership, but I think you're missing
something rather important.
Being on the LA committee is not beer and skittles. It's time-consuming,
frustrating, requires diplomacy, and is just plain hard work. We meet by
teleconference *every* *week*, and converse regularly during the week as
well. On top of that, it actually costs money out of our own pockets to
be on the Committee. Even when big-ticket items like airfares to a
face-to-face meeting are covered, there are numerous little expenses
along the way. Interstate phone calls, time off work to attend meetings
and other functions, paying for take-away food while at an f2f when we
would have eaten more cheaply at home, it all adds up. It gets in the
way of our social life, it takes time away from other things we could be
doing, and it's generally just a pain.
So to be accused of rorting the organisation after putting in money out
of my own pocket is just a little bit hurtful.

If you and others who have criticised or flamed my post, read my 
posting, I said that the matter is worthy of examination, NOT that the 
money was rorted, or that, as someone else suggested in another 
response, that the committee defrauded Linux Australia.
The problem is that what happened, in the circumstances as stated, 
creates a situation where examination would be worthwhile.
It is like the proverb, "Justice must not only be done, it must be seen 
to be done". In that, and, as has been mentioned in court judgements in 
relation to bias, is the concept of perception. In  relation to court 
judgements where mention has been made relating to bias, is the term, 
"perception of bias".
As I said in my posting, the two issues are worthy of examination. I do 
not expect that they would show, as mentioned as suggested above, or in 
the other response, that the committee had rorted, or defrauded, Linux 
Australia.
However, the posting by the Linux Australia president, had sought 
comment on the status of Linux Australia, and I raised issues that are, 
I think, worthy of examination.
If others argue that the committee is unaccountable, as it appears from 
some of the responses so far, and that is the decision, then so be it.
In relation to my reference to members of governments, etc, and overseas 
trips, I note that a headline has come out today, as shown on the ABC 
online news web site 'Beazley denies MP's on European jaunts'. This is 
the kind of image, that is best avoided by what is supposed to be a 
non-profit organisation with apparently defined goals and objectives.
And, I note that, in the responses to my posting, are, as usual, the 
gratuitously derogatory postings, which are of the nature that cause 
people to stay away from the list, and, possibly from the association.
And that, especially in conjunction with the nature of some of the 
responses so far "How dare anyone question the actions or 
decisions of the committee, or disagree with something that happens in 
Linux Australia!, is indicative of the lack of maturity, 
professionalism, and, dignity, of the organisation, which adversely 
affects its sustainability and status.
--
Bret Busby
Armadale
West Australia
..............
"So once you do know what the question actually is,
 you'll know what the answer means."
- Deep Thought,
  Chapter 28 of
  "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:
  A Trilogy In Four Parts",
  written by Douglas Adams,
  published by Pan Books, 1992
....................................................