[Linux-aus] Proposal: two year overlapping terms, more council members

David Lloyd lloy0076 at adam.com.au
Mon Dec 12 14:34:57 AEDT 2016


Larger committees can work so long as they can meet quorum; they can become difficult if decisions are made by consensus but the committee meetings are technically ruled under laws (common or otherwise) which indicate that the majority will rule. I once sat on a large committee and my fellow committee member and I would count up the likely votes. If we thought that there was a majority either she or I would move “the motion be put.:


Extending ANY of the roles to a multi-year commitment might equally discourage someone to nominate. Now, instead of just one year they have to commit two years of their life? If you really just joined as a general committee member are you now expected to go for one of the non-general positions?


It's not quite as easy as it looks.


Linux Australia doesn’t need more council members or more subcommittees. It needs people to be doing stuff that promotes its goals and aims...and I think that’s the main problem.






From: linux-aus [mailto:linux-aus-bounces at lists.linux.org.au] On Behalf Of Nathan Bailey
Sent: Sunday, 11 December 2016 8:36 PM
To: paulway at mabula.net
Cc: Linux Australia <linux-aus at lists.linux.org.au>
Subject: Re: [Linux-aus] Proposal: two year overlapping terms, more council members


Hi Paul,

 I like the gist of your idea, but I suspect the practicality is difficult, in that:

a) Larger committees can find it harder to come to consensus (and longer to build momentum)

b) Larger committees will also be more expensive to coordinate in-person meetings for


But we could see some roles be for two years (eg. president) or having some overlap (eg. three months at end of term for key roles such as president and treasurer).



On 12 December 2016 at 04:12, Paul Wayper <paulway at mabula.net <mailto:paulway at mabula.net> > wrote:

Hi all,

What I observe from Hugh and Kathy's statements about what Linux Australia has
achieved in the last year, and the ensuing discussion, is that LA council
positions require a fair bit of work, and it's very difficult to find people
that have simple enough lives that they can dedicate that much time to doing
the work without real life intruding.

This is no surprise - everyone's busy these days :-)  And while we all want to
see Linux Australia continue to be a forum for FOSS advocacy, an umbrella
group for several successful FOSS conferences, and a variety of other things,
we also don't expect the people that volunteer to be its elected council to
pause the rest of their lives while serving.

So I'd like to put forward the proposal that each position have effectively
two people on it; one being the role leader, the other being an understudy.
The understudy is there to learn the job and to step in should the role leader
be required for whatever reason to step down or take a break.


Option A: each election elects the understudy for the position.  The terms for
each position are therefore twice as long, with each understudy stepping up to
be the next role leader at the next election.

Option B: each election elects both role leader and understudy, with terms
operating as normal.

Option C: each general member be also delegated (in some way) to be the
understudy for a particular role, expanding the number of general council
members if necessary.

Option D: expand the number of general council members to add an understudy
for each role plus all the current council members.  The understudies do not
hold an official position in the same way that the role leader.

I'm sure the creative minds on the Linux Australia list can find a couple more
variants.  I suspect that we currently unofficially run with option C above.


The main disadvantage of this proposal is that it (generally) requires more
council members.  In some cases it also requires more people to put themselves
forward for the council and to be voted on.  This may involve extra expense
for LA (?), the need to find more people to actually put themselves forward,
and the extra complications of planning and organising that having a larger
council would involve.

The main advantage I hope for this proposal is that the business of Linux
Australia can continue to progress if one or more elected officials need to
step down.  This seems to have happened a number of times, and as Hugh has
said this sees LA move into more of a holding pattern and stall on achieving
its goals.

Let the discussion begin!

Have fun,

linux-aus mailing list
linux-aus at lists.linux.org.au <mailto:linux-aus at lists.linux.org.au> 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/attachments/20161211/09e16541/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the linux-aus mailing list