[Linux-aus] Inflection Point - A Strategic Plan for Linux Australia
web at polynate.net
Wed Jan 6 17:53:30 AEDT 2016
The wonderful thing about the Linux-related communities I have been a part
of is their inclusiveness. Although we all strive for greater openness, we
welcome the efforts of anyone, celebrating what they can do and then
helping them go further.
I would still celebrate a document like Kathy's even if it was written in
MS Word (or PDF). There is nothing stopping someone from forking her
document into a git-based repo for further edits.
By all means, discover and advocate for better tools, but let's not exclude
people from this valuable discussion who may only contribute with less
technically adept toolsets. [ No allusions to any specific person's skill
level here ]
2. STRATEGIC PLAN and ELECTIONS
In terms of Kathy's broader intent - a strategic plan is a bold document.
It does take a long time to develop in large organisations, because there
are many constituents to consult. However, we can move faster than a
traditional organisation by using a variety of collaborative technologies
to build consensus in a quick and inclusive way.
I like Kathy's idea of a committee elected with a mandate for the future.
We won't get agreement on the future in four days, but we should get
agreement on the need for a bold, more decisive future, and a commitment
from people who are willing to help create that. Not just on the committee,
but in working groups for each major project. I'd be much more inclined to
commit to a working group with a defined timeline and outcomes than a role
on the committee.
1: Time is also a factor. I can git, but I Google doc quicker.
On 6 January 2016 at 16:15, Kathy Reid <kathy at kathyreid.id.au> wrote:
> On 06/01/16 15:43, Lev Lafayette wrote:
>> I have to respectfully disagree Michael.
>> 'Bikeshedding' is a discussion about an mostly irrelevant point because
>> everyone can have an opinion on it, whilst not contributing to the
>> difficult questions. "What colour should the bike shed be painted?" is the
>> traditional example cited, because it really isn't that important compared
>> to building the nuclear power plant*.
>> The issue isn't about Google Docs vs git as such, but rather whether an
>> organisation that calls itself "Linux Australia" or "Open Source
>> Australia" should use Linux-friendly and open-source tools or something
>> else that is convenient and/or popular but doesn't comply to open
>> standards, doesn't maximise accessibility, or isn't FOSS. This is *highly*
> I don't disagree with your points. Linux Australia, wherever possible,
> should use free and open source software and adopt open standards.
> However, and this is a very big however, when someone takes the time and
> energy to write a strategic paper with the intent of maturing and advancing
> an organisation, this sort of criticism not only detracts from the
> discussion at hand, it belittles the efforts of the author by focussing on
> the format of content, not the content itself. No wonder we have such
> difficulty attracting and retaining volunteer contributors if this is how
> their contributions are treated.
> I'd like to propose the following;
> * That Inflection Point will, at an appropriate time, be moved to a GIt
> repository managed by LA
> * Until that time discussion regarding its *contents* continue on Google
> I'd say let's build the nuclear reactor, but given North Korea's
> activities this afternoon it may be considered poor taste.
> linux-aus mailing list
> linux-aus at lists.linux.org.au
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the linux-aus