On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 11:52 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote: > <quote who="Christopher Yeoh"> > > > If there are problems with not having sufficently geographic diverse > > representation on the committee, then what about changing things in the > > future to allow LUGs (say with minimum size and regular meeting > > qualifications) to be have the right to internally vote for a > > representative on the LA committee (eg additional reserved spots - maybe > > only for those areas/LUGs where there aren't existing reps)? > > There was an attempt a while back to create a forum for LUG leaders to work > together and interact with the LA committee. It was in the form of a mailing > list at that time, but could be something else. I would far prefer something > like that to swelling the committee with geographical representatives. Do we > need geographical *representation* to pursue LA's goals (ie. the community's > goals) or do we need better *communication*? I'd suggest the latter. As Jeff says, there was an attempt - and it didn't really work out... I also think that geographical representation on ctte would be flawed at best. Perhaps a LUG Advisory Board (LAB) that chats with LA ctte at various points (maybe every 2 or 3 months) to discuss various things? I think the regular dial-ins from LUG people to the LA ctte conf call have been great, but perhaps doing it all en-masse will get larger participation and cross group communication going. thougths? -- Stewart Smith (stewart@linux.org.au) Committee Member, Linux Australia
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part