[Linux-aus] [Announce] Notice of Linux Australia 2024 Council Elections and AGM

[Jonathan Woithe]

Hi Kathy

On Wed, Jan 03, 2024 at 10:01:11PM +1100, Kathy Reid via linux-aus wrote:
> I'd love to hear from potential Council Members around some of the
> challenges I see for Linux Australia itself, and the community more broadly,
> for example some of the actions or programs that might be undertaken in 2024
> to address them.

Sure!  See below.  I hope my responses adequately address your questions but
let me know if any clarifications are required.

> ## Pipeline challenges
> 
> Across the board with open* in Australia, we are observing pipeline
> challenges - that is, we seem to be lacking "the next generation" of open
> source advocates - those willing to donate their time, talent and treasure
> (ref: Tiffany Ferris) to advance the organisation's goals. This is evident
> in the number of people nominating for Council, the broader group of people
> willing to "pitch in" and provide help with all the things the organisation
> does [0], the pipelines for organising flagship events such as Everything
> Open and PyConAU etc.
> 
> How do nominees intend to address the pipeline challenges, with specific
> reference to goals, activities or programs of work?

First up, pipeline challenges are not unique to Linux Australia (LA) or the
Open Technology community generally.  Across society I have observed similar
issues in diverse volunteer-based organisations.  Many of these groups have
far more resources than LA is ever likely to have and yet they are still
struggling to attract volunteers of all ages.  The issue appears to manifest
differently across the generations, suggesting that there are multiple
underlying issues.  However, there doesn't appear to be consensus on the
real root causes or - critically - on ways to address it (beyond the usual
"time-poor society" comment).

That said, it is clear that LA needs to attract and mentor the next
generation if it is to remain relevant to the community and viable.  As
there is no textbook solution to the problem, LA will simply need to try a
number of different approaches to see what works.  Of course it's difficult
to measure success in this instance too because it could only become obvious
in a decade's time.  A Junior Primary student attending a technology event
might have a seed planted in their mind which only germinates into a passion
many years later.

To this end, I have been encouraged by the events like those organised by
Lyndsey Jackson over the last couple of years with LA's support ("Big Sand
Band" in 2022, the upcoming "Hack The Triangle" event this year).  These
events target the younger generation, getting them enthusiastic about
technology and providing an opportunity to make use of and highlight the
Open Technology sector.  I see engagement through similar events as an
important component towards addressing the pipeline challenge - even if the
lead time on seeing the benefits is lengthy.  Of course, this raises a
second related challenge - identifying LA members who themselves have the
time, resources and energy to put these events on.

LA's pipeline challenge is more than just about primary and lower secondary
students, however.  With a small number of exceptions, the education system
in Australia is heavily skewed towards proprietary technology.  In some
extreme cases, institutions forbid students using anything other than what
has been officially authorised.  However, even without a prohibition the
systems in place make it almost impossible to use anything else in practice. 
The result of this is that students emerge from education knowing nothing
about Open Technology solutions.  Since proprietary solutions are what they
know, they just continue using that without question in most cases.

The cause of this situation has been well documented.  The weight of
resources directed at the education sector by proprietary vendors precisely
to engineer the above outcome is a substantial hurdle for organisations like
LA.  Unfortunately, I do not currently have any answers to this aspect of
the pipeline challenge.

> ## Hired help
> 
> For a long time (certainly since I was on Council in the mid-2010s) there
> has been debate around whether Linux Australia should hire help such as an
> Executive Officer role to "do more of the doing", while Council plays a
> (volunteer) governance role. Other organisations, such as Digital Rights
> Watch, and previously, Electronic Frontiers Australia, have adopted this
> model.
> 
> Can Linux Australia afford to go down this path, and where do nominees'
> views sit on this question?

As you elude to, this is a vexed question in the context of volunteer
organisations.

In what follows, I use the term "Executive Officer" to denote the "do more
of the doing" role for brevity.

Given the state of LA's finances and our average profits over the last few
years, I personally do not believe LA can afford to employ an Executive
Officer.  It may be possible to argue that thre's a chicken-and-egg
situation going on here: that if a paid Executive Officer were put in place,
the Council would be freed to spend time on other activities which would
raise the money needed to pay for the Executive Officer.  However, broadly
speaking LA's income is exclusively from the conferences it auspices. 
Increasing this means raising the profits generated by these conferences,
and certainly for the foreseeable future this doesn't appear likely -
assuming we continue to keep the conferences affordable.  The other side of
this is that LA feeds its profits back to the community in the form of
sponsorships, grants and donations.  If a sizable proportion of the profit
were to go to pay the wage of a paid position, the benefits delivered to the
community will necessarily fall.

I have also been involved with other volunteer-based community groups over
the years who have wrestled with this question.  In cases where the decision
has been made to selectively pay for certain roles, the result has almost
always been detrimental to the organisation.  Human nature being what it is,
paying for one position creates a perception amongst members that the
organisation values the work of the paid person more than those who are
unpaid.  Policies can be written to counter this on a theoretical level, but
this doesn't alter what people think in practice.  Rather than reinvigorate
an organisation, I have seen the introduction of a paid position result in a
net decline in the vibrancy of the group as people left, feeling that their
contribution wasn't being appreciated or was being taken for granted.  I do
not want to see the LA community similarly fragmented over this issue.

This is not to say that such a model doesn't work in some places: the
examples you called out demonstrate this.  However, I am not convinced that
it would be a net gain for LA.

It is worth mentioning that LA already pays for some services (the
accounting platform being the most obvious).  Several of LA's conference
teams have also paid for a professional event organiser to assist them.  One
could therefore argue that a precedent has been set.  Even so, employing an
Executive Officer for the organisation as a whole is quite different to
these other expenses which, generally, target very specific things.

To summarise, my current position is as follows.

 1. At present, LA cannot afford to pay for an Executive Officer.

 2. If LA could afford to pay for an Executive Officer, I *personally* do
    not believe it is in the best interests of LA to do so.  However, LA is
    more than just me and I see my potential role on Council being
    representative of the membership.  Therefore, if there were to be a
    groundswell of opinion amongst the membership that this was an option LA
    should pursue, I would certainly not stand in the way.

 3. I *personally* remain open to arguments on both sides of the discussion.

> ## Strategic direction
> 
> Is Linux Australia on the right track? What strategic changes do you think
> are needed (if any)? How would you make these changes?

In many ways this is an extension of the first question.  I think that
generally speaking LA is going in the right direction: LA provides
frameworks which allow community-run events to occur, and the profits made
are fed back to support the Open Technology community as previously
described.

LA also works to promote diversity in the Open Technology community (and the
Technology sector more broadly).  These efforts should continue, and even be
expanded where resources allow.

However, there are clearly things that need improvement.  The pipeline
challenge (and membership engagement more generally) is a good example.  As
stated earlier, I would be very keen to see more outreach events held to
encourage more students to embrace Open Technologies.

Recent discussions on the linux-aus mailing list indicate that there is
enthusiasm for the establishment of LA awards, with a specific focus
initially on programming efficiency improvements.  I continue to monitor the
discussion with interest as it appears to be an effective way to engage
members and promote their activities to the membership generally.  There is
still obviously a significant amount of developmental work to be done on the
idea, but with members enthusiastic to see this pursued it appears to be a
natural candidate for inclusion in LA's strategy due to the engagement it
will foster - for both those organising the awards and the people taking
part.

As highlighted in the past, there have been some difficulties surrounding
communication from Council to members.  While I believe this has improved in
2023, the broader question of the communication platform fragmentation (and
the resulting inefficiencies) remains.  On the one hand, it would be
unifying if all members were reachable on a single platform.  In practice,
this is unlikely to be practical due to the diverse views and requirements
of our members.  The challenge then is to devise a way to efficiently
communicate with all LA members without having to send a message in a dozen
different ways (which takes time).  It may be possible to leverage some
automation, for example, to make this less onerous.

Adding to the complexity is the decline in email as a communication medium
that younger generations actively engage in.  LA - like many Open Technology
communities - has traditionally used email as the primary communication
medium.  There may need to address this in order to make LA more relatable
and accessible for younger people while not alienating the existing
membership.

Finally, I note that Joel is keen to form a five year strategic plan in
2024.  I look forward to supporting that process and hearing the ideas which
result from the associated discussions within the LA community.

Regards
  jonathan

LA Ordinary Committee Member 2023
Nominated for 2024 LA Ordinary Committee Member
Nominated for 2024 LA Vice President