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

[Arjen Lentz]

You make it sound very dramatic, Russell. Wouldn't want the evil empire taking over.

Am I correct in noting that HUMBUG is currently a non-incorporated organisation?

Doesn't this mean potentially significant liability exposure for any office holders and actually all members, both in terms of financials as well as other matters?

AFAIK LUV was incorporated so their starting point was different. For those bits at least, HUMBUG has more to gain.

Several groups have been using either the LA or OSDClub umbrella for years now, and your doomsday scenario has not yet eventuated for any of them.
Doesn't mean the sky can't fall in, and performance in the past is no guarantee for the future, however I think it would be more fair to say that those commenting here simply prefer independence, and more specifically simple continuation of HUMBUG in its current structure and scope. That's fine and why not just day so? Why invent a bogeyman?

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