[H-GEN] [Linux-aus] LUV considering joining LA

[Gary Curtis]

To borrow an olde usenet meme...

me 2

Gary
-------------
Gary Curtis      t: 07 3801 1311    m: 04 1455 1488



On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 12:45 PM, Russell Stuart <
russell-humbug at stuart.id.au> wrote:

> [ Humbug *General* list - semi-serious discussions about Humbug and     ]
> [ Unix-related topics. Posts from non-subscribed addresses will vanish. ]
>
> On Sat, 2013-08-24 at 11:24 +1000, Aguido Davis wrote:
> > > We'd like to take this opportunity to inform you that Linux Users'
> > > Victoria is considering disincorporating from its current legal status,
> > > and re-forming as a subcommittee of Linux Australia. LUV members will
> > > vote on this motion at their AGM in Melbourne on 3rd September. LUV's
> > > committee and LA's council have had some high level talks around this
> > > and warmly welcome the move.
> >
> > So. Anybody think it would be worth HUMBUG following suit?
>
> We have discussed this on a number of occasions.
>
> The upsides are:
>
> 1.  LA would provide us with public liability insurance.
> 2.  We could LA's infrastructure (wiki, mailing lists principally).
>
>
> It would have no effect on:
>
> a.  Someone still has to organise rooms.
> b.  Someone still has to chase membership.
> c.  We will still need AGM's to elect committee members.
> d.  Money.  We have enough.
>
>
> The downsides:
>
> i.    We would have to do what LA says.  For example they have said
>       since we would be using their mailing lists, they have the
>       right to determine what we could and could not post there.
>       Ditto running our IRC channel.
>
> ii.   We would have to turn over all our funds to LA, so undoing it
>       if we wanted to would be hard.
>
> iii.  We would have to ask for permission when we spend money.
>
> iv.   There is no guarantee we have any representation or say in the
>       running us (LA), and consequently how Humbug is run.  So for
>       example if we became an LA subcommittee next year, then LA
>       could decide to disband the subcommittee the year after that
>       and the members of Humbug would have no say in the matter.
>
> v.    The huge amount of work put into our wiki (by Matt, principally)
>       would almost certainly be lost.  As I suspect would a lot of
>       Humbug's history and character.
>
>
> If we were a new club with no money, no infrastructure, and no existing
> organisational structure (eg, a constitution) then becoming a LA
> subcommittee using LA's resources might make sense.
>
> Even then, I would feed a lot more comfortable if LA needed us as much
> as we would need them if we became a subcommittee.  For example, in the
> NRL the organisation needs the clubs (for players, grounds, supporters)
> as much as the clubs need the NRL (the competition, and a share of the
> TV rights money).  But that isn't the case with LA.  LA could happily
> exist without any LUG subcommittees, and in fact has done so in the past
> for years.
>
> Pushing the comparison further, in the case of the NRL each club remains
> an separate entity, which is independently run and happens to choose to
> be part of the NRL for now.  The club could leave the NRL tomorrow and
> still have it's members, grounds, bank accounts and players intact.
> What we are suggesting here is to disband Humbug as a separate entity
> entirely - which is an completely different thing.
>
> Speaking for myself, I am not comfortable with it.
>
> _______________________________________________
> General mailing list
> General at lists.humbug.org.au
> http://lists.humbug.org.au/mailman/listinfo/general
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.humbug.org.au/pipermail/general/attachments/20130824/ac47ca10/attachment.html>