[Linux-aus] Should Linux Australia change its name

Tim Serong tim at wirejunkie.com
Thu Apr 26 21:00:37 EST 2012

On -9/01/37 06:59, Chris Neugebauer wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 19:52, Noel Butler <noel.butler at ausics.net> wrote:
>> Then, as the risk of repeating myself, yet again, the only option you have
>> if you don't want to explain that, is to become your own legal entity,
>> because I can see you answering  "other" questions if not about linux, about
>> other things... and seriously
> I'm not sure how you perceive it as being the only option.
>> how much effort is to explain it isn't going towards linux anyway? Far far
>> LESS I imagine than the 20 plus posts you have made arguing for a name
>> change I'm sure in this thread, especially when all you're doing is saying
>> the same thing, just worded differently each time.
> As per Peter Lieverdink's previous message, it's not just about the
> ones I have to explain it to, but the people who see "Linux" over the
> website and sponsorship prospectus and don't make contact that we can
> help avoid.
> If I honestly believed the collective effort it would take to explain
> to sponsors in future were less than I've spent arguing this point on
> this mailing list, you can bet that that's the path I'd take.  Because
> I have a conference to run, this year and next. I have a limited
> amount of time, and I seriously believe that I'd save a lot of effort
> and put on a better conference if this issue didn't exist.

I'm sure I'm going to regret chiming in, but what the hell.

This is not just about Chris[1], and it's not just about PyCon.

It's not about "giving up our roots".

It's about having a name that actually reflects what the organization
actually does.  The name is the first thing that people see (if and when
they actually do see it), and names will always create a certain
impression, and mean a certain thing.  I suspect that the name "Linux
Australia" currently has more meaning for our members than it does for
anyone else in the world, which is probably why this thread has become
such a train wreck.

The Org[2] runs several conferences, one of them[3] semi-specifically
Linux focused, fosters several user groups, provides grants for various
other things, and...  If someone could answer John Vandenberg's query
that might help a lot to provide some further clarity.

For those who don't want to lose the LA brand, IIRC nobody actually
suggested that, rather LA branded activities would/could become a
subcommittee of The Org.


Glad that's all off my chest.  Now I can STFU again.



[1] He just happens to have been doing a very good job of describing
    the issues.
[2] Deliberate avoidance of the term LA for the sake of demonstration
[3] OK, the major one

More information about the linux-aus mailing list