[Linux-aus] Council Meeting 2011-02-17

James Turnbull james at lovedthanlost.net
Mon Feb 21 07:16:52 EST 2011

Hash: SHA1

Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 18:57, John Ferlito <johnf at inodes.org> wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 01:05:02AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 08:11, Peter Lieverdink <me at cafuego.net> wrote:

As much was this might frighten both of us I agree with AJ here. :)

>>>> Values statement (drafted, but unfinished?)
>>>> John will share Elspeths document with Kelly and Mary as well.
>>> Has this been posted to this list?
>> No it is a work in progress and will be posted to the list for
>> discussion before anything goes up on a website etc.

Why can't the WIP just be thrown up on the wiki and a link send to the
list with some context?  Y'all can hack on it there and people can add
their ten cents too if they are so inclined.

> We saw the president's report sent to the list about an hour before
> the AGM. Are you able to give us a commitment we'll see the detailed,
> final figures (or at least draft figures that are very close to them)
> for LA well before the SGM? That is, will there be sufficient time for
> the membership to review the figures, and request additional
> breakdowns of the finances *before* the council will ask the
> membership to approve the books?


> (Personally, I doubt that the breakdown that's appropriate for an
> audit will necessarily have the details I'm interested in about where
> LA's money's been going. Hopefully the financial reports will cover
> that anyway, but the way things are going, I'm expecting "oh look, we
> have lots of money and the auditor signed off! yay! what, no, we can't
> tell you what we spent on what exactly, sorry, you should've asked
> earlier. all in favour?")

I think this is a bit unfair as an assumption. I'd expect two artifacts
here - one a "This is a letter from the auditor saying we're good" and
"Here is the standard financial reporting covering this year" (which
should be detailed enough to satisfy former Treasurers etc).  Anything
else wouldn't meet the requirements for financial reporting IMHO.

> Yes, I appreciate that. For grants, LA requires a proposal, a clear
> statement of how it benefits Linux in Australia (or some other aspect
> of LA's goals), and public discussion, and limits the maximum amount
> to $1000, the idea being that that way there doesn't need to be too
> much review because not too much money is at risk.

I strongly agree with AJ here.  This should have been pitched to the
list as a "This is the proposal, LA wants to donate x dollars, there are
the pros and cons, what say the membership."



- -- 
Author of:
* Pro Linux System Administration (http://tinyurl.com/linuxadmin)
* Pulling Strings with Puppet (http://tinyurl.com/pupbook)
* Pro Nagios 2.0 (http://tinyurl.com/pronagios)
* Hardening Linux (http://tinyurl.com/hardeninglinux)
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/


More information about the linux-aus mailing list