[Linux-aus] LA Name Change - the process

[James Polley]

On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Gary Allpike <gary at allpikes.com.au> wrote:

> **
>
> Hi,
>
> I wonder if anyone can satisfy my curiosity....
>
> Are there any actual documented occasions where the name of the
> organisation has caused problems that have proven so substantial as to be
> insurmountable (without requiring excessive effort on behalf of the
> committee/conference organiser/whatever) thus having a negative impact on
> the running of the organisation or events associated with it?
>
I don't think "insurmountable" is the right standard.

Chris Neugebauer has detailed (
http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/2012-April/019535.html is
probably the most succinct explanation, but he's also re-explained this at
http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/2012-April/019455.html,
http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/2012-April/019544.html,
http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/2012-April/019526.html) how
the current situation affects him as an organiser of PyCon-AU. Once he's in
communication with potential sponsors, the problem is surmountable - but he
has to keep having the same conversation over and over and over and over
with every single sponsor. This is time that could be better spent
elsewhere.

This only applies to sponsers he's been in communication with. While all
the sponsors that he's spoken to have been able to understand the
situation, we don't know how many other potential sponsors simply never got
in touch because of the name.

> What quantifiable benefit will changing the name provide to the
> organisation?
>
> What quantifiable cost will there be to the organisation to change the
> name?
>
> I'd like to remind people that the assets of the organisation, both
> tangible and intangible have come about as a result of the organisation
> being "Linux Australia".
>
> LA runs the best Linux Conference in the world (I may be slightly biased)
> and has the funds to underwrite and back this conference. While
> linux.conf.au is not the primary focus of LA it certainly is it's main
> source of funds and it's primary publicly visible activity. I would hate to
> see a blurring of the focus of the organisation lead in any way to having a
> detrimental effect on the running of linux.conf.au. Will there be checks
> and measure put in place to ensure that the new expanded activities of the
> organisation (I am led to believe that this will be the case after all the
> obstacles to this are removed by changing the name) to ensure the continued
> support of linux.conf.au? (Hypothetically; "Linux Advocacy and associated
> activities is now just one of our many objectives, we have some other new
> thing we want to work on so we have decided not to fund LCA any more and
> use our money elsewhere")
>
I'm going to point at sections 25 and 19 of the constitution here as a
last-ditch way to force this. If the Council did decide not to fund an LCA,
it only takes 20 members to call an EGM to pass a special resolution to fix
this (by forming a sub-committee to run the LCA and authorising funding for
it; or by wholesale replacement of the committee members)

But I think there's a bigger issue that would prevent this: the vast
majority of LAs funding comes from LCA. All the rest of the activities LA
does are funded from the profits of LCA. If the LA council were to decide
not to run an LCA, it wouldn't be a matter of diverting funding; it would
be *foregoing* funding.

> Please understand, I am not trying to be a smart ass just for the sake of
> it here. I just cant grasp WHY we need to change the name, nor shake the
> feeling that somehow in all of this Linux Australia could in some way
> become diluted.
>
I think it's fair to say that the feedback from the community has been
*very* strong on the fact that the Linux Australia brand is strong and
needs to be maintained. Many people have suggested forming an LA
sub-committee of the newly-named umbrella organisation (to go alongside
existing subcommittees such as SLUG, LOGIN, PYCON-AU, Wordcamp AU etc) to
ensure that linux continues to get the focus it deserves. I think the
council would probably be supportive of such a move, if anyone were to step
up and run the sub-committee.


>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Gary
>
>
>
> On 15/07/2012 7:53, James Purser wrote:
>
> Okay because everyone seems to be getting hopped up on goof balls over
> this lets clarify:
> The process is this:
> 1. Council to submit a number of options for vote. This includes NOT
> CHANGING THE NAME
> 2. Vote is held. If result is NOT CHANGING THE NAME, that's the end of the
> process
> 3. If result is anything else, top three names are taken to a second vote.
> 4. Winner is given one year recording contract with... oh hold on.
> That's it.
> Understandably there are passionate feelings on both sides. Can we please
> put our arguments forward in a thoughtful, respectful manner? It is
> possible to argue your case without going personal.
>  --
> James Purser
>
>  --
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Gary Allpikegary at allpikes.com.au
> Mob: 0429 342 412 (Intl: +61-429 342 412)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-aus mailing list
> linux-aus at lists.linux.org.au
> http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/linux-aus
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/attachments/20120715/e36da2fd/attachment-0001.htm