On Monday, 18 September 2006 at 20:27:02 -0700, Michael Still wrote: > Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > >> - I don't believe that Australia is big enough for two organizations >> which cover so much common ground. > > Aren't there a lot more than two at the moment though? I can think of > AUUG, LA, SAGE-AU, ACS off the top of my head. There are more. But SAGE-AU and ACS don't have as much ground in common as AUUG and LA. >> - It confuses the Establishment. We've heard several times from >> AGIMO, for example, that they'd far rather deal with only one open >> source group. > > I have expressed my opinion of that argument in an earlier email. Sorry, I either missed it or haven't got round to reading it yet. >> - It also makes it easier to get sponsors for conferences and things. > > LA doesn't appear to have any troubles getting sponsors though. s/any/much/, I suspect. > I wonder if this is more of a process issue revolving around the > _perceived_ worth of the two events in the minds of potential > sponsors. AUUG used to do quite well with sponsors, and I'm not > clear on what has changed. Can I have a hint please? Flavour du jour, I'd say. >> - AUUG caters for proprietary UNIX. >> >> This last one is the real issue. I personally think it's a thing that >> a successor organization could handle. You only need to look at the >> conference programmes for the last few years to see that just about >> everything has been Open Source. About the only exception has been >> MacOS X. What do people think of that? > > Well, there was push back to OS X at several Linux events I attended > last year. It's not free software, and that was the defining argument at > the time. Yes, I would have expected that. What do people think now? Greg -- Finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key. See complete headers for address and phone numbers.
Attachment:
pgpPgnOnZktO9.pgp
Description: PGP signature