[Linux-aus] How did non-event sub-comittees get formed?
jamezpolley at gmail.com
Sat Dec 3 15:10:03 AEDT 2016
On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 12:21 AM, Russell Coker <russell at coker.com.au> wrote:
> On Friday, 2 December 2016 7:46:18 AM AEDT Anthony Towns wrote:
> > I kind of think that in practice that 95% of the reason LA is valuable
> > to anyone these days is that it helps people *run* events; and if so,
> > that isn't really valuable to that many people -- the pool of people
> > running open source related events in Australia (and maybe NZ) just
> > isn't that big.
> > Personally, I think of LA as an organisation run by/for open source
> > developers/admins/power users -- so, by and large, it doesn't make
> I think the problem here is that LA was traditionally an organisation for
> people, but the LA council is focused on running events etc. This isn't a
> problem as such, changing the name to "council" with the aim of having
> lots of
> subcommittees was a good idea but it unfortunately didn't get followed
> We need subcommittees for things such as Linux advocacy. I will consider
> volunteering for such a subcommittee.
I was about to respond by pointing to
- but on closer reading, that policy seems to be only for event
still refers to sub-committees that exist "to facilitate LA's operations
or" as "a project undertaken with the governance of the council"
Could a current council-member confirm that the "v1" policy is the policy
that would apply to a Linux advocacy sub-committee?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the linux-aus