Apologies for top post but thank you Daniel, that's quite a bit to think about. Roger > Alternative motion to the LUV disincorporation motion. > > Following my previous post, and as promised here is a proposed > alternative motion which I believe can bring long term benefit to LUV > Members, and the Linux and Open Source Community in Australia. > > > Motion: > > 1. LUV reaffirms the role of Linux Australia (LA) as the national peak > body for all matters regarding Linux. > > 2. LUV, via its Committee, will explore ways to form a formal and > durable affiliation or other form of relationship with Linux Australia that > > 2.1 recognises a future role for each organisation in their own right > 2.2 aims to bring efficiencies in each others operations > 2.3 aims to better coordinate joint actions towards the promotion of Linux > > 3. To facilitate this relationship, LUV will invite a representative of > LA onto its Committee, and should LA accept this invitation, LUV > undertakes to amend its constitution as necessary at the earliest > opportunity so that a position for a LA representative is guaranteed on > the Committee as Ordinary Member, for the duration of the period of > affiliation or other form of relationship. > > > > The above motion is motivated by the debate on the proposed > disincorporation of LUV motion that is intended to be put to a Members > vote on 3 September. It is an alternative motion which in my opinion can > bring long term benefits to LUV, LA and the Linux and FOSS community in > Australia. > > This motion can bring all the positives aimed for in the > disincorporation motion, without any of the negatives, while keeping LUV > intact and safeguarding all the gains made over the years of existence. > > 1. above, is a self explicit statement of recognition of the role of LA. > > 2. is the core of the motion and aims at building a better relationship > between LUV and LA with a view to delivering better outcomes to the > Linux community > > 3. While this clause is not necessary, it however affirms the good faith > that LUV places in making the relationship with LA work. > > > There are benefits for BOTH LUV and LA if such a relationship can be > built and sustained . > > Examples are: > > Efficiencies gains can be made for example in shared hosting and system > administration arrangements. > > LA can gain more influence in the Linux and FOSS related activities in > Victoria. > > By having a representative on LA on the LUV Committee, exchange of > information and coordination between the 2 organisations is > significantly improved. > > By encouraging jointly organised activities, LA gets better exposure in > Victoria. Events can be labelled and promoted as being jointly organised > by LUV and LA. > > This arrangement maintains access to Sponsorship and funding mechanism, > such as the Victorian Gov. Multimedia funding or other sources which are > only available to Victorian based entities, for activities organised by LUV. > > > One other major advantage is that this arrangement does not lead to the > situation where LA is burdened by its need to continuously administer > and support a LUV-Subcommittee. Should LA’s agenda change, it has a lot > more scope to reorganise itself without affecting the Sub-committee. It > also offers a clear exit strategy whereby if a time is reached when this > relation is deemed to have lost relevance or not be appropriate anymore, > it is a simple matter for LUV to disaffiliate amicably, and each > organisation parting their own way in their own directions. A > sub-committee arrangement does not allow this. > > >From LA and LUV perspectives it provides both with a opportunity to > demonstrate that they are able to enter and sustain a mature and > effective partnership between 2 organisations. This may form a basis for > other organisations wishing to form similar relationships with LA and > LUV. Possible candidates could include for example other LUGS, OSIA > (Open Source Industry Australia), Free Software Melbourne, New Zealand > conterparts. Each organisation would be able to enter into a > relationships that best suit their circumstances. > > > > The Insurance issue. > (This is in response to a post on the mailing list) > > The issue at stake here is that of Volunteer Insurance cover. Volunteer > Insurance provides cover for Volunteers if the are injured while > involved as a Volunteer in an event organised by the organisation. > > There is evidently an issue of Volunteer management associated, whereby > if properly managed, the risks can be greatly minimised. It should be > noted that in all probability the insurance cover would apply when the > Volunteer is injured if acting upon instructions given to him/her by LUV. > > To give an example, I would imagine, for example if a volunteer is asked > to supervise a doorway at the back of a room where a speaker is giving a > talk. And that volunteer wishing to better see the speaker climbs on a > chair and falls down and breaks his/her ankle during the fall, its is > not clear that the volunteer insurance cover will apply. But if the > volunteer is assaulted by say an aggressive or intoxicated visitor, then > it likely would apply. > > Its has also to be noted that Personal Liability insurance cover is > usually provided by other mechanisms and that is distinct to Volunteer > insurance. > > > How can Volunteer Insurance Cover be provided. > > In entering into a formal relationship with LA, it will be aimed to make > it part of the relationship that, when appropriate, the Volunteer > Insurance from LA can indeed be made available by for example formally > declaring the event as being a joint LA - LUV event, and whereby one of > the contribution from LA would be to extend the insurance cover. Or as > part of LA’s contribution, Volunteer management becomes the sole > responsibility of LA. > > Infact this has already taken place in the past. During the Software > Freedom Day event of 2010 held at the State Library of Victoria, LA’s > volunteer insurance was made available to cover the volunteers. > > > > Affiliation relationships > > While an affiliation relationship is the one I am advocating in > preference, I am however open to other forms, that saveguards LUV’s > status as an independent entity. > > Affiliations are proven successful model of relationships. They exists > in the sporting world for example, where by clubs are affiliated to a > peak body representing their sport. They allow each organisation to > focus on what they do best and allow for better coordinated actions to > take place amongst them. > > > > I hope I have helped you decide on your vote. > > > Cheers > Daniel > > > _______________________________________________ > luv-main mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main >
_______________________________________________ luv-main mailing list [email protected] http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main
