Donna Benjamin | 28 Apr 09:13 2012
Picon

Should we change? Yes. To change is to grow.

Wow. 

I wonder if some of you realise how exclusive and conservative you're
sounding?

Chris' explanation of the pycon experience mirrors some of my experience
running drupal downunder. We had sponsors who wouldn't dream of
supporting LCA. However I didn't have any of them question paying their
money to Linux Australia.  

I think the list discussion focus on sponsorship was a bit of a red
herring though.  As someone who has dealt with sponsors a fair bit now,
the actual process of receiving and paying an invoice is a fairly
pragmatic one, and the entity issuing that invoice, and receiving the
cash, has not been a problem in my experience.  Our suppliers like to be
paid in a timely fashion. It's great to be able to pull up balance
sheets and P&L statements at the touch of a button (xero rocks)

But - there were definitely questions amongst the drupal community
leadership about why the linux community gets to keep all "our" profits.
Because there was a very strong perception that the linux community did
not welcome the more web focussed open source drupal community. 

Here's a grab bag list of other data points to think about:

OSDC conf was originally started because they felt excluded by LCA.
(OSDC folks - correct me please)

OSIA was founded by some who felt linux australia was a little too
aggressively anti-business and formed an incorporated entity to cater to
(Continue reading)

David Lloyd | 28 Apr 15:46 2012
Picon

Re: Should we change? Yes. To change is to grow.


Donna,

On 28/04/2012, at 4:43 PM, Donna Benjamin wrote:
Chris' explanation of the pycon experience mirrors some of my experience
running drupal downunder. We had sponsors who wouldn't dream of
supporting LCA. However I didn't have any of them question paying their
money to Linux Australia.  

That is fair enough; they don't need to.

But - there were definitely questions amongst the drupal community
leadership about why the linux community gets to keep all "our" profits.
Because there was a very strong perception that the linux community did
not welcome the more web focussed open source drupal community.

And that is a reasonable concern.

Here's a grab bag list of other data points to think about:

OSIA was founded by some who felt linux australia was a little too
aggressively anti-business and formed an incorporated entity to cater to
the concerns of businesses providing open source services and solutions.

It was formed because Linux Australia was not the right organisation at the time or even now to perform a "Chamber of Commerce" role for businesses specialising in developing or supporting open source.

As to whether Linux Australia itself, as an organisation, is or isn't
well known and regarded? We ran a survey 2 years ago, the results of
which suggested that LA was only recognised by existing members, and
only some of whom could identify what it does.  Non members were
generally unaware of Linux Australia, or whether it had anything to do
with linux.conf.au.

That may be a branding problem that Linux Australia has; it may not be. I'm not sure that it's terribly relevant.

I'd prefer to see active efforts made to unify and embrace the disparate
communities with which we share so much than continue to passively
exclude them.

There seems to be a number of options to take:

1. Change the organisation's name to reflect the organisation's values

This is eminently possible although like all constitutional changes it requires a significant hurdle to overcome. However, there are ways to ensure that the hurdle can be overcome...

2. Make another organisation with the goal that eventually, if it chooses to, the current Linux Australia becomes a part of

Maybe a sub-committee or some type of affiliate. The devil is in the details.

3. Don't change

This forces Drupal Down Under, PyCon, insert some other thing here to deal with the status quo or fix it without Linux Australia's help; I deliberately say "Linux Australia" here because if we have the status quo it would obviously still be called "Linux Australia".

4. Merge with some other existing entity somehow

Who?

* ACS
* SAGE-AU
* ComputerBank (Victoria(
* ITShare SA

Doesn't matter who. The point is to remove the apparent Linux only moniker.

5. Wind the organisation down

That's also a possibility. Like a name change it would involve an SGM and then we'd all get to fight about who gets the funds!

...

From what I can tell:

1. A name change might actually work if we can bike-shed the right name

"Not Linux Australia Incorporated" is my only somewhat useful suggestion at the moment. I think the Attorney General's Dept. in NSW might object then again they might not

2. Making another organisation could happen

But then as Pia Waugh has pointed out this does seem to be a duplication of resources and realistically the same people would probably 'staff' it.

3. Don't change.

This is obviously the easiest but Chris and Donna are making good points. Should we basically say, "Look, if you don't like the Linux Australia Inc. running it then run it yourselves and avoid that problem totally?" is up for grabs. I think a "Don't Change" is essentially saying that to be honest; it ignores what they are saying and doesn't fix their current problem at all.

Their current problem, though, could be that they need to be like children and move out of home. But that just adds a heap of pain on their shoulders when -- but for the name -- Not Linux Australia Inc could take some of that pain.

3. Merging

But with WHO?

...

There is another thing I should say. Is Linux Australia really just a "Hey, we'll run your open source thing under our banner to provide [insurance | traction | bums on seats | something]"? In which case, Linux Australia Inc could make a company (a FOR PROFIT COMPANY) called "Open Source Events Ltd" and actually make sufficient profit (of say $1 per year) to not get into trouble with the tax office? I'd suggest a profit of $1 / year at least so that it doesn't look like a stupid tax dodge.

That's ANOTHER solution by the way and possibly worth investigating. It's another version of make yet another organisation but it is possible a company that, say, runs a HahaThisConferenceWillGoBankruptBecauseEveryoneSlippedOnABanan conference, won't actually kill Linux Australia (or Not Linux Australia)...


DSL



_______________________________________________
linux-aus mailing list
linux-aus@...
http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/linux-aus
Donna Benjamin | 28 Apr 17:21 2012
Picon

Re: Should we change? Yes. To change is to grow.

On Sat, 2012-04-28 at 23:16 +0930, David Lloyd wrote:
> Their current problem, though, could be that they need to be like
> children and move out of home. But that just adds a heap of pain on
> their shoulders when -- but for the name -- Not Linux Australia Inc
> could take some of that pain.

This isn't mine and Chris's problem at all.  I actually reckon pycon,
DDU and wordcamp could all continue on just fine without a name change
as sub-committees of Linux Australia.  It's just that our experience
running those events has shown us examples of why it's a good idea to
think about changing the name of this organisation.

But to focus on Chris and me is to miss the point.

To focus on sponsorships and events, is to miss the point.

The point, is that Linux Australia is a really effective organisation
right now, supporting SOME of the Australian free and open source
software, open hardware and technology freedom community.

There's a lot more of the community that just doesn't engage with us,
because they either don't know we exist, or (possibly wrongly) think we
wouldn't welcome them with open arms. Or worse, actively feel like they
don't matter to us, or we don't matter to them.

Also - for all of you telling us to go away and set up other
organisations? Really?

I mean really? Can you hear yourself in the mirror?

Using the resources, infrastructure and legal entity of Linux Australia
means countless volunteers are not wasting money, time and energy on
duplicating administrivial tasks they would otherwise be required to do
if they did that.  

That is why LA has offered these resources to these groups. 
It's one of the truly useful things LA does for the community. 

--

-- 
Donna Benjamin - Executive Director
Creative Contingencies - http://cc.com.au
ph +61 3 9326 9985 - mob +61 418 310 414
David Lloyd | 28 Apr 17:34 2012
Picon

Re: Should we change? Yes. To change is to grow.


Donna,

On 29/04/2012, at 12:51 AM, Donna Benjamin wrote:

> On Sat, 2012-04-28 at 23:16 +0930, David Lloyd wrote:
>> Their current problem, though, could be that they need to be like
>> children and move out of home. But that just adds a heap of pain on
>> their shoulders when -- but for the name -- Not Linux Australia Inc
>> could take some of that pain.
> 
> This isn't mine and Chris's problem at all.  I actually reckon pycon,
> DDU and wordcamp could all continue on just fine without a name change
> as sub-committees of Linux Australia.  It's just that our experience
> running those events has shown us examples of why it's a good idea to
> think about changing the name of this organisation.
> 
> But to focus on Chris and me is to miss the point.
> 

No it's not.

> To focus on sponsorships and events, is to miss the point.

No it's not.

> The point, is that Linux Australia is a really effective organisation
> right now, supporting SOME of the Australian free and open source
> software, open hardware and technology freedom community.

I agree there.

> There's a lot more of the community that just doesn't engage with us,
> because they either don't know we exist, or (possibly wrongly) think we
> wouldn't welcome them with open arms. Or worse, actively feel like they
> don't matter to us, or we don't matter to them.

That's perfectly clear

> Also - for all of you telling us to go away and set up other
> organisations? Really?
> 
> I mean really? Can you hear yourself in the mirror?

Yes.

How about: "I'll provide you with my insurance for free and then you tell me to change my legal name." You look
in your own mirror  before you try to see my vision in mine.

> Using the resources, infrastructure and legal entity of Linux Australia
> means countless volunteers are not wasting money, time and energy on
> duplicating administrivial tasks they would otherwise be required to do
> if they did that.  
> 
> That is why LA has offered these resources to these groups. 
> It's one of the truly useful things LA does for the community. 
> 

So we should change its name. Apparently. I think.

DSL
Donna Benjamin | 28 Apr 18:03 2012
Picon

Re: Should we change? Yes. To change is to grow.

On Sun, 2012-04-29 at 01:04 +0930, David Lloyd wrote:
> "I'll provide you with my insurance for free and then you tell me to
> change my legal name." You look in your own mirror  before you try to
> see my vision in mine.

More than half the people on the current committee have been actively,
intimately involved in running linux.conf.au. They are all obviously
involved in the day to day administrivia of keeping this organisation
ticking, with a budget of around a million dollars with no paid staff at
all, and recently met for a rare face to face meeting.

I wasn't there, I wasn't part of that, I had no part in making this call
to change the name.

John Ferlito, current president, and core team member of LCA07 has
raised this question. Not me, not Chris.  We've just offered examples of
why we should think about it.

The others..
Peter Lieverdink - LCA08
Josh Hesketh - LCA09
Clinton Roy - LCA11
Mike Carden - LCA13

which leaves
Bianca Gibson - also an active member of free software melbourne
Jamez Polley - former president of SLUG.

So - I'm not sure how turning the mirror back on me is actually useful.

--

-- 
Donna Benjamin - Executive Director
Creative Contingencies - http://cc.com.au
ph +61 3 9326 9985 - mob +61 418 310 414
David Lloyd | 28 Apr 18:15 2012
Picon

Re: Should we change? Yes. To change is to grow.


Hi Donna,

On 29/04/2012, at 1:33 AM, Donna Benjamin wrote:

> On Sun, 2012-04-29 at 01:04 +0930, David Lloyd wrote:
>> "I'll provide you with my insurance for free and then you tell me to
>> change my legal name." You look in your own mirror  before you try to
>> see my vision in mine.
> 
> More than half the people on the current committee have been actively,
> intimately involved in running linux.conf.au.

Ok.

> They are all obviously
> involved in the day to day administrivia of keeping this organisation
> ticking, with a budget of around a million dollars with no paid staff at
> all, and recently met for a rare face to face meeting.

Ok.

Both of the above are totally irrelevant.

> I wasn't there, I wasn't part of that, I had no part in making this call
> to change the name.

That is relevant but you are giving reasons to think about it. Let's drop the political BS and say you support it.

> John Ferlito, current president, and core team member of LCA07 has
> raised this question. Not me, not Chris.  We've just offered examples of
> why we should think about it.
> 
> The others..
> Peter Lieverdink - LCA08
> Josh Hesketh - LCA09
> Clinton Roy - LCA11
> Mike Carden - LCA13
> 
> which leaves
> Bianca Gibson - also an active member of free software melbourne
> Jamez Polley - former president of SLUG.
> 
> So - I'm not sure how turning the mirror back on me is actually useful.

Well, do you think we've come to a consensus? I don't think we have. We might have to have one of these
horrendous things called a vote...but we can't possibly have that...until we know the results.

DSL
James Polley | 29 Apr 00:12 2012
Picon

Re: Should we change? Yes. To change is to grow.

It's lovely to see that the youngsters of today still remember the classic Python sketches like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y


It's also fun to see the sketches being adapted to provide some light relief in the middle of an otherwise serious (but useful) dialogue :)

On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 1:34 AM, David Lloyd <lloy0076-t0RjpzUORie6c6uEtOJ/EA@public.gmane.org> wrote:

Donna,

On 29/04/2012, at 12:51 AM, Donna Benjamin wrote:

> On Sat, 2012-04-28 at 23:16 +0930, David Lloyd wrote:
>> Their current problem, though, could be that they need to be like
>> children and move out of home. But that just adds a heap of pain on
>> their shoulders when -- but for the name -- Not Linux Australia Inc
>> could take some of that pain.
>
> This isn't mine and Chris's problem at all.  I actually reckon pycon,
> DDU and wordcamp could all continue on just fine without a name change
> as sub-committees of Linux Australia.  It's just that our experience
> running those events has shown us examples of why it's a good idea to
> think about changing the name of this organisation.
>
> But to focus on Chris and me is to miss the point.
>

No it's not.


> To focus on sponsorships and events, is to miss the point.

No it's not.

> The point, is that Linux Australia is a really effective organisation
> right now, supporting SOME of the Australian free and open source
> software, open hardware and technology freedom community.

I agree there.

> There's a lot more of the community that just doesn't engage with us,
> because they either don't know we exist, or (possibly wrongly) think we
> wouldn't welcome them with open arms. Or worse, actively feel like they
> don't matter to us, or we don't matter to them.

That's perfectly clear

> Also - for all of you telling us to go away and set up other
> organisations? Really?
>
> I mean really? Can you hear yourself in the mirror?

Yes.

How about: "I'll provide you with my insurance for free and then you tell me to change my legal name." You look in your own mirror  before you try to see my vision in mine.

> Using the resources, infrastructure and legal entity of Linux Australia
> means countless volunteers are not wasting money, time and energy on
> duplicating administrivial tasks they would otherwise be required to do
> if they did that.
>
> That is why LA has offered these resources to these groups.
> It's one of the truly useful things LA does for the community.
>

So we should change its name. Apparently. I think.

DSL


_______________________________________________
linux-aus mailing list
linux-aus-cunTk1MwBs8iFSDQTTA3OPd9D2ou9A/h@public.gmane.orgu
http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/linux-aus

_______________________________________________
linux-aus mailing list
linux-aus@...
http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/linux-aus
Jon "maddog" Hall | 28 Apr 21:20 2012

Re: Should we change? Yes. To change is to grow.

Hi,

[sorry if you receive this twice, but I got a message that said:

Delivery to the following recipients was aborted after 9 second(s):

  * linux-aus@...
]

I have been following this discussion for some time.  I have seen good
arguments on both sides.

I would like to suggest an approach of having a parent organization that
is "Free and Open Culture of Australia" or something as encompassing of
your value statement as you can get.  This organization would lend its
resources and "umbrella" to as many organizations as it feels fits that
value statement.  This has been suggested before.

The fear that I hear some people voicing is the very real danger that
"Linux Australia" (that has been doing a great job IMHO) in staffing up
this new organization will lose focus or energy to keep either this new
organization going or that the Linux part of "Linux Australia" will
falter.  The value of the brand "Linux Australia" (which has both good
and bad parts to it), might be lost.

What if you kept the organization the same for right now but had a
dual-name?  Or use the tag-line approach I suggested before:

o "Linux Australia: Free and Open Culture of Australia"

o "Free and Open Culture of Australia: The organization formerly known
as Linux Australia"

This would help the transition of your base without causing too much
confusion (IMHO).

Then add the concept of "brands" or "trademarks" that are not
necessarily tied to the name of the organization.

"Proctor and Gamble" (the organization) makes the products "Crest" and
"Old Spice".

In your case the Organizational name is the new one and "Linux
Australia" is the brand of the "Linux".  linux.conf.au is the event put
on by the "Linux Australia" brand.

Then separate out the "mechanisms" that benefit Python, Drupal and the
other organizations, including one for "Linux Australia".  Each
organization has their own "brands", and perhaps their own conferences,
with a "federated" conference every year for either new things (that do
not have enough following for their own brand or conference) or things
that are "winding down" and need a place for their users to meet.

I think if you took this strategy you would meet the needs of everyone,
have a path forward and not duplicate a lot of mechanism.

Just a suggestion,

maddog

> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> linux-aus mailing list
> linux-aus@...
> http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/linux-aus
Chris Neugebauer | 29 Apr 01:09 2012
Picon

Re: Should we change? Yes. To change is to grow.

Hi maddog,

On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 05:20, Jon "maddog" Hall <maddog@...> wrote:
>
> I have been following this discussion for some time.  I have seen good
> arguments on both sides.

And thanks for following it, and providing your valuable input :)

> I would like to suggest an approach of having a parent organization that
> is "Free and Open Culture of Australia" or something as encompassing of
> your value statement as you can get.  This organization would lend its
> resources and "umbrella" to as many organizations as it feels fits that
> value statement.  This has been suggested before.

This paragraph does a pretty good description of the current role of
Linux Australia (with the exception of the broad, encompassing name).

> The fear that I hear some people voicing is the very real danger that
> "Linux Australia" (that has been doing a great job IMHO) in staffing up
> this new organization will lose focus or energy to keep either this new
> organization going or that the Linux part of "Linux Australia" will
> falter.  The value of the brand "Linux Australia" (which has both good
> and bad parts to it), might be lost.

> What if you kept the organization the same for right now but had a
> dual-name?  Or use the tag-line approach I suggested before:
>
> o "Linux Australia: Free and Open Culture of Australia"

This approach would probably mean that the post-colon bit gets dropped
in the vast majority of cases where it would be beneficial to have it displayed.

> o "Free and Open Culture of Australia: The organization formerly known
> as Linux Australia"

An approach like this one has the problem that it removes our ability
to have a useful byline -- having a name like _THE_ORG_: "Fostering
Free and Open Culture in Australia" in places where we want to display
a byline (e.g. at the conferences we run) -- would saying "The
organisation formerly known as Linux Australia" make sense to the
majority of PyCon delegates if it were on the pre-talk screen, or
their conference programme? I'm not certain they'd find it relevant.

> Then add the concept of "brands" or "trademarks" that are not
> necessarily tied to the name of the organization.
> [ snip ]
> In your case the Organizational name is the new one and "Linux
> Australia" is the brand of the "Linux".  linux.conf.au is the event put
> on by the "Linux Australia" brand.

This ties in well with Russell Coker's suggestion, and it's probably
the most sensible use for the LA name I've seen put forward.

> Then separate out the "mechanisms" that benefit Python, Drupal and the
> other organizations, including one for "Linux Australia".  Each
> organization has their own "brands", and perhaps their own conferences,
> with a "federated" conference every year for either new things (that do
> not have enough following for their own brand or conference) or things
> that are "winding down" and need a place for their users to meet.

This describes Linux Australia's current subcommittee structure.  The
"federated" conferences you describe strongly resemble the current
Linux.conf.au (and its associated miniconfs).

> I think if you took this strategy you would meet the needs of everyone,
> have a path forward and not duplicate a lot of mechanism.

In my own opinion, we very much have the structure you've described in
your mail already in place, with the exception of a broad-reaching
name, and an appropriate use for the "Linux Australia" name.

I feel your suggestion of associating the "Linux Australia" name with
Linux.conf.au is a good one, but there are probably other appropriate
uses for it that could be suggested by the membership and the council.

Thanks again, maddog, for your suggestions,

--Chris

--

-- 
--Christopher Neugebauer

Jabber: chrisjrn@... -- IRC: chrisjrn on irc.freenode.net --
AIM: chrisjrn157 -- MSN: chris@... -- WWW:
http://chris.neugebauer.id.au -- Twitter/Identi.ca:  <at> chrisjrn
Ronald Skeoch | 30 Apr 00:33 2012
Picon

Re: Should we change? Yes. To change is to grow.


<!-- <at> page { margin: 2cm } P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm } PRE { font-family: "Nimbus Roman No9 L" } --

On 29/04/12 05:20, Jon "maddog" Hall wrote:
I would like to suggest an approach of having a parent organization that is "Free and Open Culture of Australia" or something as encompassing of your value statement as you can get. This organization would lend its resources and "umbrella" to as many organizations as it feels fits that value statement. This has been suggested before.
Snip

I suggest

"Free Open Standards Community ANZ"

I believe this is an encompassing statement of our objectives:-

Free to use - May have patents appropriately held
                     should have appropriate licence

Free to enhance

"Open Standards" are a core necessity enabling
                     Linux
                     Pycon
                     Drupal
                     Word Camp ...etc to florish

"Community" - the major missing concept from politics today
                      opposie to global rationalisation


I believe our Advocacy should be to focussed on
achieving true "unencumbered open standards "
for all branches of community life,
- Health records
- Aussie hamburgers, cakes
- Car tinkerers
- Video Codec
- Government to people user interface
- Document storage etc



Ron Skeoch MD, Muli Management P/L. Project Risk, Accounts & Process Management. www.muli.com.au Phone +612 (02) 9487 3241 Fax +612 (02) 9487 3583

_______________________________________________
linux-aus mailing list
linux-aus@...
http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/linux-aus
Silvia Pfeiffer | 30 Apr 04:09 2012
Picon

Re: Should we change? Yes. To change is to grow.

On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Ronald Skeoch <skeoro@...> wrote:
>
>
> On 29/04/12 05:20, Jon "maddog" Hall wrote:
>
> I would like to suggest an approach of having a parent organization that
> is "Free and Open Culture of Australia" or something as encompassing of
> your value statement as you can get.  This organization would lend its
> resources and "umbrella" to as many organizations as it feels fits that
> value statement.  This has been suggested before.
>
> Snip
>
> I suggest
>
> "Free Open Standards Community ANZ"
>
> I believe this is an encompassing statement of our objectives:-
>
> Free to use - May have patents appropriately held
>                      should have appropriate licence
>
> Free to enhance
>
> "Open Standards" are a core necessity enabling
>                      Linux
>                      Pycon
>                      Drupal
>                      Word Camp ...etc to florish
>
> "Community" - the major missing concept from politics today
>                       opposie to global rationalisation
>
>
> I believe our Advocacy should be to focussed on
> achieving true "unencumbered open standards "
> for all branches of community life,
> - Health records
> - Aussie hamburgers, cakes
> - Car tinkerers
> - Video Codec
> - Government to people user interface
> - Document storage etc

I like the sentiment behind it, but it seems to exclude software and
hardware - standards by itself isn't really what we are about. We
don't want to be competing with "Standards Australia" in any way shape
or form.

"Free and Open Source Software, Hardware and Communities in Australia
and New Zealand" is more what we are about, but that's really quite a
mouth full...

Cheers,
Silvia.
Jamezpolley | 30 Apr 04:40 2012
Picon

Re: Should we change? Yes. To change is to grow.


On 30/04/2012, at 12:09 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer
<silvia@...> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Ronald Skeoch <skeoro@...> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 29/04/12 05:20, Jon "maddog" Hall wrote:
>> 
>> I would like to suggest an approach of having a parent organization that
>> is "Free and Open Culture of Australia" or something as encompassing of
>> your value statement as you can get.  This organization would lend its
>> resources and "umbrella" to as many organizations as it feels fits that
>> value statement.  This has been suggested before.
>> 
>> Snip
>> 
>> I suggest
>> 
>> "Free Open Standards Community ANZ"
>> 
>> I believe this is an encompassing statement of our objectives:-
>> 
>> Free to use - May have patents appropriately held
>>                      should have appropriate licence
>> 
>> Free to enhance
>> 
>> "Open Standards" are a core necessity enabling
>>                      Linux
>>                      Pycon
>>                      Drupal
>>                      Word Camp ...etc to florish
>> 
>> "Community" - the major missing concept from politics today
>>                       opposie to global rationalisation
>> 
>> 
>> I believe our Advocacy should be to focussed on
>> achieving true "unencumbered open standards "
>> for all branches of community life,
>> - Health records
>> - Aussie hamburgers, cakes
>> - Car tinkerers
>> - Video Codec
>> - Government to people user interface
>> - Document storage etc
> 
> 
> I like the sentiment behind it, but it seems to exclude software and
> hardware - standards by itself isn't really what we are about. We
> don't want to be competing with "Standards Australia" in any way shape
> or form.
> 
> "Free and Open Source Software, Hardware and Communities in Australia
> and New Zealand" is more what we are about, but that's really quite a
> mouth full...
> 
> Cheers,
> Silvia.

I have a name which is short, simple, and inclusive: Open Australia.

Unfortunately that name is taken.

> 
> _______________________________________________
> linux-aus mailing list
> linux-aus@...
> http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/linux-aus
Sarah Stokely | 30 Apr 05:10 2012

Re: Should we change? Yes. To change is to grow.

I had hoped that LA and our friends at Open Australia might talk about joining forces, because I agree, that is the name we should have. :)  Matthew from OA has spoken at LCA, and the aims of LA and OA are certainly sympathetic. Should this conversation maybe happen?

Cheers,
Sarah

On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Jamezpolley <jamezpolley-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:


On 30/04/2012, at 12:09 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer <silvia-lSAyKcXyPXNbzNOwmYRlYIQuADTiUCJX@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Ronald Skeoch <skeoro-gCJkhrQd4xO6c6uEtOJ/EA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 29/04/12 05:20, Jon "maddog" Hall wrote:
>>
>> I would like to suggest an approach of having a parent organization that
>> is "Free and Open Culture of Australia" or something as encompassing of
>> your value statement as you can get.  This organization would lend its
>> resources and "umbrella" to as many organizations as it feels fits that
>> value statement.  This has been suggested before.
>>
>> Snip
>>
>> I suggest
>>
>> "Free Open Standards Community ANZ"
>>
>> I believe this is an encompassing statement of our objectives:-
>>
>> Free to use - May have patents appropriately held
>>                      should have appropriate licence
>>
>> Free to enhance
>>
>> "Open Standards" are a core necessity enabling
>>                      Linux
>>                      Pycon
>>                      Drupal
>>                      Word Camp ...etc to florish
>>
>> "Community" - the major missing concept from politics today
>>                       opposie to global rationalisation
>>
>>
>> I believe our Advocacy should be to focussed on
>> achieving true "unencumbered open standards "
>> for all branches of community life,
>> - Health records
>> - Aussie hamburgers, cakes
>> - Car tinkerers
>> - Video Codec
>> - Government to people user interface
>> - Document storage etc
>
>
> I like the sentiment behind it, but it seems to exclude software and
> hardware - standards by itself isn't really what we are about. We
> don't want to be competing with "Standards Australia" in any way shape
> or form.
>
> "Free and Open Source Software, Hardware and Communities in Australia
> and New Zealand" is more what we are about, but that's really quite a
> mouth full...
>
> Cheers,
> Silvia.

I have a name which is short, simple, and inclusive: Open Australia.

Unfortunately that name is taken.

>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-aus mailing list
> linux-aus-cunTk1MwBs+oGNRTaapkhg@public.gmane.orgorg.au
> http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/linux-aus

_______________________________________________
linux-aus mailing list
linux-aus-cunTk1MwBs8iFSDQTTA3OPd9D2ou9A/h@public.gmane.orgu
http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/linux-aus



--
Sarah Stokely
Communications + Community Consultant
Mobile: 0403 800 991 

_______________________________________________
linux-aus mailing list
linux-aus@...
http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/linux-aus
James Polley | 30 Apr 06:27 2012
Picon

Re: Should we change? Yes. To change is to grow.



On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Sarah Stokely <sarah-OfGavfteIJiDatTbedK6yA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
I had hoped that LA and our friends at Open Australia might talk about joining forces, because I agree, that is the name we should have. :)  Matthew from OA has spoken at LCA, and the aims of LA and OA are certainly sympathetic. Should this conversation maybe happen?

Although I think there are synergies, I don't know if a merger would make sense.

One of OA's aims has always been to be neutral: they provide a means for people to follow and respond to political issues, but they never ever take sides.

LA is explicitly and advocacy organisation: we can, will, and have argue for particular policies and laws. I don't think this is compatible with OA's stance.
 

Cheers,
Sarah


On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Jamezpolley <jamezpolley-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:


On 30/04/2012, at 12:09 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer <silvia-lSAyKcXyPXNbzNOwmYRlYIQuADTiUCJX@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Ronald Skeoch <skeoro-gCJkhrQd4xO6c6uEtOJ/EA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 29/04/12 05:20, Jon "maddog" Hall wrote:
>>
>> I would like to suggest an approach of having a parent organization that
>> is "Free and Open Culture of Australia" or something as encompassing of
>> your value statement as you can get.  This organization would lend its
>> resources and "umbrella" to as many organizations as it feels fits that
>> value statement.  This has been suggested before.
>>
>> Snip
>>
>> I suggest
>>
>> "Free Open Standards Community ANZ"
>>
>> I believe this is an encompassing statement of our objectives:-
>>
>> Free to use - May have patents appropriately held
>>                      should have appropriate licence
>>
>> Free to enhance
>>
>> "Open Standards" are a core necessity enabling
>>                      Linux
>>                      Pycon
>>                      Drupal
>>                      Word Camp ...etc to florish
>>
>> "Community" - the major missing concept from politics today
>>                       opposie to global rationalisation
>>
>>
>> I believe our Advocacy should be to focussed on
>> achieving true "unencumbered open standards "
>> for all branches of community life,
>> - Health records
>> - Aussie hamburgers, cakes
>> - Car tinkerers
>> - Video Codec
>> - Government to people user interface
>> - Document storage etc
>
>
> I like the sentiment behind it, but it seems to exclude software and
> hardware - standards by itself isn't really what we are about. We
> don't want to be competing with "Standards Australia" in any way shape
> or form.
>
> "Free and Open Source Software, Hardware and Communities in Australia
> and New Zealand" is more what we are about, but that's really quite a
> mouth full...
>
> Cheers,
> Silvia.

I have a name which is short, simple, and inclusive: Open Australia.

Unfortunately that name is taken.

>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-aus mailing list
> linux-aus-cunTk1MwBs8iFSDQTTA3OBCuuivNXqWP@public.gmane.org
> http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/linux-aus

_______________________________________________
linux-aus mailing list
linux-aus <at> lists.linux.org.au
http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/linux-aus



--
Sarah Stokely
Communications + Community Consultant
Mobile: 0403 800 991 


_______________________________________________
linux-aus mailing list
linux-aus@...
http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/linux-aus
Sarah Stokely | 30 Apr 06:51 2012

Re: Should we change? Yes. To change is to grow.


On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 2:27 PM, James Polley <jamezpolley <at> gmail.com> wrote:

Although I think there are synergies, I don't know if a merger would make sense.

One of OA's aims has always been to be neutral: they provide a means for people to follow and respond to political issues, but they never ever take sides.

LA is explicitly and advocacy organisation: we can, will, and have argue for particular policies and laws. I don't think this is compatible with OA's stance.

Good point James.

Sarah
_______________________________________________
linux-aus mailing list
linux-aus@...
http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/linux-aus
Silvia Pfeiffer | 30 Apr 09:23 2012
Picon

Re: Should we change? Yes. To change is to grow.



On 30/04/2012, at 2:27 PM, James Polley <jamezpolley-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:



On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Sarah Stokely <sarah-OfGavfteIJiDatTbedK6yA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
I had hoped that LA and our friends at Open Australia might talk about joining forces, because I agree, that is the name we should have. :)  Matthew from OA has spoken at LCA, and the aims of LA and OA are certainly sympathetic. Should this conversation maybe happen?

Although I think there are synergies, I don't know if a merger would make sense.

One of OA's aims has always been to be neutral: they provide a means for people to follow and respond to political issues, but they never ever take sides.

LA is explicitly and advocacy organisation: we can, will, and have argue for particular policies and laws. I don't think this is compatible with OA's stance.

I actually think that this is short-sighted. I'm sure the Drupal Conf and the PyConf subcommittee would prefer to be seen as neutral, too, just like Open Australia. It's just that OA are doing a fine job organizing themselves (even if sending extra time on it) and thus don't really need to rely on another org to help them get sorted.

I'd like our org to be an org that OA or similar orgs could become a subcommittee of if they wanted to make their lives easier.

Silvia.


 

Cheers,
Sarah


On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Jamezpolley <jamezpolley-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:


On 30/04/2012, at 12:09 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer <silvia-lSAyKcXyPXNbzNOwmYRlYIQuADTiUCJX@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Ronald Skeoch <skeoro-gCJkhrQd4xO6c6uEtOJ/EA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 29/04/12 05:20, Jon "maddog" Hall wrote:
>>
>> I would like to suggest an approach of having a parent organization that
>> is "Free and Open Culture of Australia" or something as encompassing of
>> your value statement as you can get.  This organization would lend its
>> resources and "umbrella" to as many organizations as it feels fits that
>> value statement.  This has been suggested before.
>>
>> Snip
>>
>> I suggest
>>
>> "Free Open Standards Community ANZ"
>>
>> I believe this is an encompassing statement of our objectives:-
>>
>> Free to use - May have patents appropriately held
>>                      should have appropriate licence
>>
>> Free to enhance
>>
>> "Open Standards" are a core necessity enabling
>>                      Linux
>>                      Pycon
>>                      Drupal
>>                      Word Camp ...etc to florish
>>
>> "Community" - the major missing concept from politics today
>>                       opposie to global rationalisation
>>
>>
>> I believe our Advocacy should be to focussed on
>> achieving true "unencumbered open standards "
>> for all branches of community life,
>> - Health records
>> - Aussie hamburgers, cakes
>> - Car tinkerers
>> - Video Codec
>> - Government to people user interface
>> - Document storage etc
>
>
> I like the sentiment behind it, but it seems to exclude software and
> hardware - standards by itself isn't really what we are about. We
> don't want to be competing with "Standards Australia" in any way shape
> or form.
>
> "Free and Open Source Software, Hardware and Communities in Australia
> and New Zealand" is more what we are about, but that's really quite a
> mouth full...
>
> Cheers,
> Silvia.

I have a name which is short, simple, and inclusive: Open Australia.

Unfortunately that name is taken.

>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-aus mailing list
> linux-aus-cunTk1MwBs8iFSDQTTA3OBCuuivNXqWP@public.gmane.org
> http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/linux-aus

_______________________________________________
linux-aus mailing list
linux-aus-cunTk1MwBs8iFSDQTTA3OBCuuivNXqWP@public.gmane.org
http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/linux-aus



--
Sarah Stokely
Communications + Community Consultant
Mobile: 0403 800 991 


_______________________________________________
linux-aus mailing list
linux-aus-cunTk1MwBs8iFSDQTTA3OBCuuivNXqWP@public.gmane.org
http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/linux-aus
_______________________________________________
linux-aus mailing list
linux-aus@...
http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/linux-aus
David Lloyd | 30 Apr 05:40 2012
Picon

Re: Should we change? Yes. To change is to grow.


Hi Silvia.

On 30/04/2012, at 11:39 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote
> 
> I like the sentiment behind it, but it seems to exclude software and
> hardware - standards by itself isn't really what we are about. We
> don't want to be competing with "Standards Australia" in any way shape
> or form.
> 
> "Free and Open Source Software, Hardware and Communities in Australia
> and New Zealand" is more what we are about, but that's really quite a
> mouth full...

I am tempted to just do a Monty Pythonesque "No, it's not" but considering someone might figuratively hit me
over the head if I do, I will not; actually I think I just did.

That said, it's a long name but the acronym - FOSS HCA Australia - isn't so long and there are organisations
such as the National Australia Bank who actually have rebranded themselves to the acronym of their
original names (or were they simply trying to make people forget that they make billions of dollars but
still can't afford to employ Australian IT staff or lower credit card interest rates even by 0.01%). I'm
fairly certain I personally wouldn't want the "Libre" in there (sorry, FLOSS simply reminds me of that
dental stuff).

John "madog" Hall's e-mail is persuasive (except for the name perhaps?) and realistically any name
whatsoever we come up with, some won't like.

DSL
Stewart Smith | 30 Apr 06:19 2012

Re: Should we change? Yes. To change is to grow.

On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 15:20:40 -0400, "Jon \"maddog\" Hall" <maddog@...> wrote:
> Then separate out the "mechanisms" that benefit Python, Drupal and the
> other organizations, including one for "Linux Australia".  Each
> organization has their own "brands", and perhaps their own conferences,
> with a "federated" conference every year for either new things (that do
> not have enough following for their own brand or conference) or things
> that are "winding down" and need a place for their users to meet.

The point of brand recognition is a good one.

While we all now have friends and family that recognise "free software"
as a thing, how much does the rest of the world? Is sacrificing the word
Linux in the organisation name going to sacrifice the (possibly) little
recognition we have from the broader community?

--

-- 
Stewart Smith
Paul Gear | 1 May 00:39 2012
Picon

Re: Should we change? Yes. To change is to grow.

On 30/04/12 14:19, Stewart Smith wrote:
...
While we all now have friends and family that recognise "free software" as a thing, how much does the rest of the world? Is sacrificing the word Linux in the organisation name going to sacrifice the (possibly) little recognition we have from the broader community?

Thanks for bringing this up, Stewart.

This is the point that has been bothering me through this discussion: are we doing this for the benefit of ourselves feeling comfortable about the name, or are we doing it for the benefit of outsiders?  If the latter, are we doing it for the benefit of knowledgeable outsiders, or ignorant outsiders?

It seems to me that discussion on the drawbacks of the current name has focused on knowledgeable outsiders, but the primary purpose of a name change should be improving the perception to ignorant outsiders. (I'm using ignorant here in the strict sense of the word - no pejorative connotation intended.)  That is, the average person in the street who uses his or her iPhone and thinks it's cool, and spares no thought for the comprehensive digital surveillance that owning such a device enables, nor for the developer lock-in it requires.

To such a person, the terms "F(L)OSS", "Free Software", "Software Libre", "Open Source", and their derivatives are so vague as to be meaningless, despite the fact that they're well-defined jargon to us.  For such people, Linux is "that other OS which geeks use", and when they hear about it they tend to associate it with people who are generally more technically knowledgeable than the average person.  (IMO, this is generally a positive association, as long as we are perceived as well-mannered and humble geeks.)

If we're to win mindshare for technology freedom in the broader community, i think Linux is actually the best naming platform on which to stand, because Linux is a known brand and as it gains exposure, the culture that gave birth to it and the licenses under which its components are released gain mindshare.

Of course, all this could be done with an overall governing body of a different name and a brand name of Linux Australia (that's something i'll leave to those more qualified), but if we sacrifice it as our primary brand, we'll be cutting off our nose to spite our face.

Regards,
Paul

Attachment (paul.vcf): text/x-vcard, 235 bytes
_______________________________________________
linux-aus mailing list
linux-aus@...
http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/linux-aus
Silvia Pfeiffer | 1 May 02:22 2012
Picon

Re: Should we change? Yes. To change is to grow.

I really wouldn't mind having "Linux Australia" as a subcommittee, but
it does need somebody to run it.
Who here is keen enough to run such a subcommittee? What would it
include? Is it just essentially looking after the mailing list?

Cheers,
Silvia.

On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Paul Gear <paul@...> wrote:
> On 30/04/12 14:19, Stewart Smith wrote:
>
> ...
>
> While we all now have friends and family that recognise "free software" as a
> thing, how much does the rest of the world? Is sacrificing the word Linux in
> the organisation name going to sacrifice the (possibly) little recognition
> we have from the broader community?
>
>
> Thanks for bringing this up, Stewart.
>
> This is the point that has been bothering me through this discussion: are we
> doing this for the benefit of ourselves feeling comfortable about the name,
> or are we doing it for the benefit of outsiders?  If the latter, are we
> doing it for the benefit of knowledgeable outsiders, or ignorant outsiders?
>
> It seems to me that discussion on the drawbacks of the current name has
> focused on knowledgeable outsiders, but the primary purpose of a name change
> should be improving the perception to ignorant outsiders. (I'm using
> ignorant here in the strict sense of the word - no pejorative connotation
> intended.)  That is, the average person in the street who uses his or her
> iPhone and thinks it's cool, and spares no thought for the comprehensive
> digital surveillance that owning such a device enables, nor for the
> developer lock-in it requires.
>
> To such a person, the terms "F(L)OSS", "Free Software", "Software Libre",
> "Open Source", and their derivatives are so vague as to be meaningless,
> despite the fact that they're well-defined jargon to us.  For such people,
> Linux is "that other OS which geeks use", and when they hear about it they
> tend to associate it with people who are generally more technically
> knowledgeable than the average person.  (IMO, this is generally a positive
> association, as long as we are perceived as well-mannered and humble geeks.)
>
> If we're to win mindshare for technology freedom in the broader community, i
> think Linux is actually the best naming platform on which to stand, because
> Linux is a known brand and as it gains exposure, the culture that gave birth
> to it and the licenses under which its components are released gain
> mindshare.
>
> Of course, all this could be done with an overall governing body of a
> different name and a brand name of Linux Australia (that's something i'll
> leave to those more qualified), but if we sacrifice it as our primary brand,
> we'll be cutting off our nose to spite our face.
>
> Regards,
> Paul
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-aus mailing list
> linux-aus@...
> http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/linux-aus
>
Russell Stuart | 1 May 02:38 2012
Picon

Re: Should we change? Yes. To change is to grow.

On Tue, 2012-05-01 at 08:39 +1000, Paul Gear wrote:
> To such a person, the terms "F(L)OSS", "Free Software", "Software
> Libre", "Open Source", and their derivatives are so vague as to be
> meaningless, despite the fact that they're well-defined jargon to us.

I was looking over Donna's list of names and the list on the wiki, and I
after seeing words "Open Technology" a few times I came to the reverse
conclusion.

The attraction of "Open Technology" is it's inclusiveness.  However if
you favour instant brand name recognition over inclusiveness "Open
Source" is definitely the one to pick.  There are many outsiders who use
the words "Open Source" as keywords describing an example of alternate
way of doing things that clearly works (often with overtones of being
morally superior).  Academic publications is one example, and hardware
design is another.

So if LA wants the brand name that is most likely to be understood by
the media and politicians at a glance - then it should be "Open Source".
It's goal is to be more attractive to hacker spaces, robot competitions
and the like, then perhaps "Open Technology".  As you say other names
like FLOSS, "Free Software" and so on suffer the disadvantages of both -
they are not well recognised outside of our group, and they aren't
inclusive.
Mark Walkom | 1 May 04:06 2012
Picon

Re: Should we change? Yes. To change is to grow.

On 1 May 2012 10:38, Russell Stuart <russell-linuxaus-M7Clnf/pV6IXC2x5gXVKYQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:
So if LA wants the brand name that is most likely to be understood by
the media and politicians at a glance - then it should be "Open Source".
It's goal is to be more attractive to hacker spaces, robot competitions
and the like, then perhaps "Open Technology".  As you say other names
like FLOSS, "Free Software" and so on suffer the disadvantages of both -
they are not well recognised outside of our group, and they aren't
inclusive.

Perhaps a general parent advocacy organisation with children for hardware and software?
_______________________________________________
linux-aus mailing list
linux-aus@...
http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/linux-aus
David Lloyd | 1 May 05:17 2012
Picon

Re: Should we change? Yes. To change is to grow.


Gah,

On 01/05/2012, at 11:36 AM, Mark Walkom wrote:

On 1 May 2012 10:38, Russell Stuart <russell-linuxaus-M7Clnf/pV6IXC2x5gXVKYQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:
So if LA wants the brand name that is most likely to be understood by
the media and politicians at a glance - then it should be "Open Source".
It's goal is to be more attractive to hacker spaces, robot competitions
and the like, then perhaps "Open Technology".  As you say other names
like FLOSS, "Free Software" and so on suffer the disadvantages of both -
they are not well recognised outside of our group, and they aren't
inclusive.

Perhaps a general parent advocacy organisation with children for hardware and software?

That's part of the point of this conversation and it illustrates it perfectly.

In a way it might be easier to just create a new organisation from scratch and then invite Linux Australia to federate with or be absorbed by it...

DSL

_______________________________________________
linux-aus mailing list
linux-aus@...
http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/linux-aus
David Lloyd | 1 May 04:10 2012
Picon

Re: Should we change? Yes. To change is to grow.


And if you had a federation of committees you could have "Open Source Australia" and "Open Hardware
Technology Australia". In fact, if these two groups had some subset who didn't like each other they
needn't be in the same group as each other and they could both support -- I am going to say it despite the fact I
hate the term -- Free and Libre Open Source Software!

*sigh*

Is it worth someone preparing a draft to make the changes with [INSERT THE NAME HERE WHEN THEY'VE MADE THEIR
MIND UP] wherever it mentions the name?

DSL

On 01/05/2012, at 10:08 AM, Russell Stuart wrote:

> On Tue, 2012-05-01 at 08:39 +1000, Paul Gear wrote:
>> To such a person, the terms "F(L)OSS", "Free Software", "Software
>> Libre", "Open Source", and their derivatives are so vague as to be
>> meaningless, despite the fact that they're well-defined jargon to us.
> 
> I was looking over Donna's list of names and the list on the wiki, and I
> after seeing words "Open Technology" a few times I came to the reverse
> conclusion.
> 
> The attraction of "Open Technology" is it's inclusiveness.  However if
> you favour instant brand name recognition over inclusiveness "Open
> Source" is definitely the one to pick.  There are many outsiders who use
> the words "Open Source" as keywords describing an example of alternate
> way of doing things that clearly works (often with overtones of being
> morally superior).  Academic publications is one example, and hardware
> design is another.
> 
> So if LA wants the brand name that is most likely to be understood by
> the media and politicians at a glance - then it should be "Open Source".
> It's goal is to be more attractive to hacker spaces, robot competitions
> and the like, then perhaps "Open Technology".  As you say other names
> like FLOSS, "Free Software" and so on suffer the disadvantages of both -
> they are not well recognised outside of our group, and they aren't
> inclusive.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> linux-aus mailing list
> linux-aus@...
> http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/linux-aus
Chris Neugebauer | 28 Apr 13:01 2012
Picon

Re: Should we change? Yes. To change is to grow.

On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 17:13, Donna Benjamin <donna@...> wrote:
>
> As to whether Linux Australia itself, as an organisation, is or isn't
> well known and regarded? We ran a survey 2 years ago, the results of
> which suggested that LA was only recognised by existing members, and
> only some of whom could identify what it does.  Non members were
> generally unaware of Linux Australia, or whether it had anything to do
> with linux.conf.au.
>

Was there an analysis of the survey data published by LA that said as
much? I've only been able to find the raw data.

--Chris

--

-- 
--Christopher Neugebauer

Jabber: chrisjrn@... -- IRC: chrisjrn on irc.freenode.net --
AIM: chrisjrn157 -- MSN: chris@... -- WWW:
http://chris.neugebauer.id.au -- Twitter/Identi.ca:  <at> chrisjrn
Julien Goodwin | 28 Apr 13:29 2012
Picon

Re: Should we change? Yes. To change is to grow.

I've kept out of this discussion so far, but thanks Donna for writing a
great post (as usual).

Personally, I've been waiting to see a name I feel we could latch on to
before totally jumping on the bandwagon, something which might go a bit
smoother if we stop arguing.

Sadly I think this may well end up like Mary's work last year where
despite much wailing none of the people making the noise made any actual
effort to offer an alternative (other then saying what's the problem),
and never voted on the amendments. Sadly I'm seeing a few of those names
pop up again in this discussion.

On 28/04/12 17:13, Donna Benjamin wrote:
> OSDC conf was originally started because they felt excluded by LCA.
> (OSDC folks - correct me please)

The history as I understand it was the original plan was for YAPC-AU
(Yet Another Perl Conference), and the local (Melbourne) Python people
were making rumblings about a Python conference, and combined with the
local PHP people they got together to run a conference larger then any
one of the groups could have done on their own.

Having been to all but the 2011 OSDC and over the years having worked
with most of the organisers I never saw any animosity, the perception I
saw was that they were different audience, in particular programmers in
Free languages that worked on non-Free (Windows really) platforms.

> OSIA was founded by some who felt linux australia was a little too
> aggressively anti-business and formed an incorporated entity to cater to
> the concerns of businesses providing open source services and solutions.

That may have been the perception of some, I think others had the view
that LA simply wasn't business focused and that a business group was a
sensible, separate thing to do.

_______________________________________________
linux-aus mailing list
linux-aus@...
http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/linux-aus
Russell Stuart | 30 Apr 03:19 2012
Picon

Re: Should we change? Yes. To change is to grow.

At the last weekend's Humbug meeting Clinton did one of his debrief
talks, this time on what happened at the LA face to face.  He covered
many topics, but the one that generated the most discussion was the name
change debate.  I suggested the people present if would be helpful if
they should expressed their views on this thread, but I see none have.

So in lieu of that I'll summarise what happened.  Some actively
supported the idea, and no one said they disliked it.  So I'd say it a
"yes" from the members of Humbug - or at least those that were present
on the night.

Now that I'm here I'll put in my own 2c worth.

My own preference is an organisation's name tells you what it does (you
can probably guess of what I think of MBF changing their name to Bupa),
LA's name hasn't (ever?) reflected what it does, so a change wasn't a
bad thing.  However, I also thought no one outside of LA's membership
had dealings with it, so as a practical matter the name was not that
important.  It's a bit like the AFL I guess.  I don't follow the game,
but I do know who our local team is.  It is sort of unavoidable as the
local team are a very active part of the community - sponsoring school
coaches, sports ground equipment with their name emblazoned on it and of
course is on every TV, radio and newspaper on a weekly basis.  This is
probably a consequence of the AFL peak body doing their job well in
ensuring the local team has the knowledge and organisational skills
needed to get their name out there and well known  - but the odd thing
is I don't have a clue what the AFL peak body is called.

However, Chris's posts here have disabused me of the notion of the name
being completely unknown outside of membership.  In retrospect lots of
outsiders are exposed to it - banks, insurance companies, government
departments, conference sponsors and venues.  And then there are the
important ones - the local clubs, conferences and organisations LA is
trying to encourage and grow.  If would be a shame if say the "Open
Solaris Club" shied away from LA because of it's name.

As for the name itself, I get the impression LA has broad aspirations
for itself and wants a name to reflect it.  But do remember a large
powerful organisation with many political goals can appear threatening
to smaller local ones - the very local ones it wants to wants to help.
Or to put it another way - the flip side of making a strong
philosophical statement using a name is some will feel uncomfortable
with the secondary connotations the name brings to mind.

In reality despite it's occasional broad aspirations, LA has done one
thing consistently over the years, and it has done it well.  It has
acted as facilitator to clubs and conferences.  It does not dictate what
any grass roots organisation does, but assuming it is in line with the
open source philosophy and it is prudentially run it will provide loans
and banking, insurance, help with sponsorship and advice.  That sounds
like a Foundation to me, and so a name like "The Open Source Foundation
of Australia" or "The Open Technology Foundation of Australia" seems
appropriate.  You would end up with titles like "PyCon 2012, an
initiative of the Open Technology Foundation of Australia" or "Ada Camp,
supported by the Open Technology Foundation of Australia".  It sort of
rolls off the tongue, and more importantly if I were a sponsor it would
be an entirely appropriate organisation to write a cheque to.
Chris Neugebauer | 30 Apr 08:10 2012
Picon

Re: Should we change? Yes. To change is to grow.

On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 11:19, Russell Stuart
<russell-linuxaus@...> wrote:
>
> My own preference is an organisation's name tells you what it does (you
> can probably guess of what I think of MBF changing their name to Bupa),
> LA's name hasn't (ever?) reflected what it does, so a change wasn't a
> bad thing.  However, I also thought no one outside of LA's membership
> had dealings with it, so as a practical matter the name was not that
> important.  It's a bit like the AFL I guess.  I don't follow the game,
> but I do know who our local team is.  It is sort of unavoidable as the
> local team are a very active part of the community - sponsoring school
> coaches, sports ground equipment with their name emblazoned on it and of
> course is on every TV, radio and newspaper on a weekly basis.  This is
> probably a consequence of the AFL peak body doing their job well in
> ensuring the local team has the knowledge and organisational skills
> needed to get their name out there and well known  - but the odd thing
> is I don't have a clue what the AFL peak body is called.
>

Hilariously, you *do* actually know what it's called.  It's "AFL".  In
this case, the AFL has done a fantastic job of making themselves
completely indistinguishable from the sport they represent (Australian
Rules Football) to the casual observer.

This is one example of a brand that changed its name -- from the
*Victorian* Football League to the *Australian* Football League --
which represented its changing focus throughout the 1980s.  The result
was that more teams from outside Victoria became interested in
participating in their organisation.

That's the sort of recognition our organisation should have when it
comes to Free and Open Source software issues.  It's a great example
of a name change being used to capture mind share beyond its original
constituency.

--Chris

--

-- 
--Christopher Neugebauer

Jabber: chrisjrn@... -- IRC: chrisjrn on irc.freenode.net --
AIM: chrisjrn157 -- MSN: chris@... -- WWW:
http://chris.neugebauer.id.au -- Twitter/Identi.ca:  <at> chrisjrn
Russell Stuart | 30 Apr 08:50 2012
Picon

Re: Should we change? Yes. To change is to grow.

On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 16:10 +1000, Chris Neugebauer wrote:
> Hilariously, you *do* actually know what it's called.  It's "AFL".  In
> this case, the AFL has done a fantastic job of making themselves
> completely indistinguishable from the sport they represent (Australian
> Rules Football) to the casual observer.

After I sent that I wondered if I had embarrassed myself and it was just
the AFL as you say.

Turns out I got lucky.  According to Wikipedia the name of AFL governing
body is the "AFL Commission".  It changed it's name in 1993 from
"Australian National Football Council".  Wikipedia says the name AFL
refers to the top level league, and it was the thing called the VFL
prior to 1990.  Maybe there are other Australian Football leagues - like
under 18's.

So today I (and apparently you) learnt something.  Prior to today if
someone asked my to write a cheque to the "AFL Commission" I would have
asked "do they have anything to do with the game of Australian Rules
Football"?   I suspect we aren't a minority - most Australian's would
have to make a guess at who they are.  They seem to be doing just fine
even so.
James Polley | 30 Apr 09:57 2012
Picon

Re: Should we change? Yes. To change is to grow.



On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Russell Stuart <russell-linuxaus-M7Clnf/pV6IXC2x5gXVKYQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:
On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 16:10 +1000, Chris Neugebauer wrote:
> Hilariously, you *do* actually know what it's called.  It's "AFL".  In
> this case, the AFL has done a fantastic job of making themselves
> completely indistinguishable from the sport they represent (Australian
> Rules Football) to the casual observer.

After I sent that I wondered if I had embarrassed myself and it was just
the AFL as you say.

Turns out I got lucky.  According to Wikipedia the name of AFL governing
body is the "AFL Commission".  It changed it's name in 1993 from
"Australian National Football Council".  Wikipedia says the name AFL
refers to the top level league, and it was the thing called the VFL
prior to 1990.  Maybe there are other Australian Football leagues - like
under 18's.

Pointless irrelevant pedantry, but..

No. The "AFL Commission" is *not* "the AFL peak body", which is what you were asking about.

The peak body is, as Chris said, simply called the Australian Football League. It's a company (ACN: 004 155 211) registered in Victoria.

Australian Football League owns a sub-company, called the AFL Commission, whose role you have described - but it's not the "Peak Body" analogous to LA - the AFL Commission is closer to one of LA's subcommittees.


So today I (and apparently you) learnt something.  Prior to today if
someone asked my to write a cheque to the "AFL Commission" I would have
asked "do they have anything to do with the game of Australian Rules
Football"?   I suspect we aren't a minority - most Australian's would
have to make a guess at who they are.  They seem to be doing just fine
even so.


_______________________________________________
linux-aus mailing list
linux-aus-cunTk1MwBs8iFSDQTTA3OPd9D2ou9A/h@public.gmane.orgu
http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/linux-aus

_______________________________________________
linux-aus mailing list
linux-aus@...
http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/linux-aus
Russell Stuart | 30 Apr 12:25 2012
Picon

Re: Should we change? Yes. To change is to grow.

On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 17:57 +1000, James Polley wrote:

> No. The "AFL Commission" is *not* "the AFL peak body", which is what
> you were asking about.

This is as you said pointless irrelevant pedantry, but you've force me
to go looking.  As far as I can tell you are wrong.  The peak body is
the AFL Commission.

Before going on I'd recommend others following along don't read on, but
I'll just point out the relevance to this discussion is no one
apparently knows who that peak body is - which sort of drums home the
point that the name of the peak body doesn't matter that much to its
success.  The awareness the AFL brand carries must drive people to seek
out and participate in their local clubs - not seek out the governing
body.  In LA's case you want awareness of open source to cause people to
seek out clubs, conferences, and organisations like the Ada Initiative.

But back to the "AFL Commission" is the peak body thing.  (Bianca if you
are still reading at this point it's your own fault.)  I can almost hear
you objecting strongly to this, but before more emails are sent I'll ask
you to read the references.  First, please do read the Wikipedia pages
on the organisation [0] and the competition [1].  Two quotes stand out:

- In its role as national and international governing body, the AFL
Commission also controls and delegates development funding for
Australian state and international bodies and leagues.

So it controls the money.  That sounds like a peak body, but one
possible way it may not be is the people running it are appointed by an
even peaker body.  But no, from the same page:

- Commissioners are elected by the 18 AFL clubs, who each are entitled
to make nominations. Should an election be necessary, then the
membership is decided by a vote of the AFL clubs. 

Now I realise I realise you are right in that there is a company called
the Australian Football League and its name and ACN appears on a whole
pile of documents relating to the AFL including club agreements, and
recently the Optus DVR decision.  That might mean it is a peak body, but
it also might mean it is just an entity created by the AFL Commission to
do it's bidding - maybe for legal reasons.

To figure out which, you have to look at the political structure.  The
AFL looks to be a ground up organisation.  Originally there were clubs.
The clubs formed an incorporation to organise games.  It was originally
called the VFL, later renamed to the AFL.  You would expect the clubs to
maintain tight control over this organisation as after all they created
it to service their needs.  They did this by ensuring then people who
ran it were nominated and elected by them.  Then in 1993 as [2]
explains, that incorporated entity disbanded itself and ceded power to
the AFL Commission which is also run by people exclusively elected by
the clubs.

The point being the AFL is ultimately operated by the clubs - and that
is unlikely to change.  So if the company is the peak body it must also
be owned an operated by the clubs, so the clubs must elect two sets of
people - one set to operate the AFL Commission, and one to operate the
company.  This sounds like an inefficient way of doing things - it would
be far easier to just have the AFL Commission own the company.  Since I
can't find a single document that says the company is the peak body, for
now I'm going with that arrangement.

Gad this is off getting topic, but I think how other successful
organisations operate is relevant.  What happened in the lead up to 1993
is interesting.  It appears a decade before the then VFL board decided
to offload all the grunge work of actually organising the competition to
the AFL commission.  (If you have kids you will know this really *is*
grunge work - organising grounds, time tables, coaches, getting players
from A to B, publishing results, fighting over the best way to deploy
funding.  It's time consuming mind numbing stuff.)  I'd even guess they
justified it by saying they were freeing themselves to do the important
"visionary stuff".  But in the end it is the grunge work that matters.
If the competition and clubs work the organisation will grow through its
grass roots.  That is, after all, the only way an organisation like the
AFL or indeed LA can grow.  But if that is what the grunge work
accomplishes, what is the point of the visionary stuff?  After a decade
or so on the spin off eat its mother.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFL_Commission

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_rules_football

[2] http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/2504/default.aspx
Adam Redman | 30 Apr 13:51 2012
Picon

Re: Should we change? Yes. To change is to grow.

For example:

-----Original Message-----
From: linux-aus-bounces@...
[mailto:linux-aus-bounces@...] 
Sent: Monday, 30 April 2012 9:04 PM
To: Adam Redman
Subject: Request to mailing list linux-aus rejected

Your request to the linux-aus mailing list

    Posting of your message titled "unsubscribe"

has been rejected by the list moderator.  The moderator gave the
following reason for rejecting your request:

"No reason given"

Any questions or comments should be directed to the list administrator
at:

    linux-aus-owner@...

-----Original Message-----
From: linux-aus-bounces@...
[mailto:linux-aus-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Russell
Stuart
Sent: Monday, 30 April 2012 8:26 PM
To: James Polley
Cc: linux-aus@...
Subject: Re: [Linux-aus] Should we change? Yes. To change is to grow.

On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 17:57 +1000, James Polley wrote:

> No. The "AFL Commission" is *not* "the AFL peak body", which is what 
> you were asking about.

This is as you said pointless irrelevant pedantry, but you've force me
to go looking.  As far as I can tell you are wrong.  The peak body is
the AFL Commission.

Before going on I'd recommend others following along don't read on, but
I'll just point out the relevance to this discussion is no one
apparently knows who that peak body is - which sort of drums home the
point that the name of the peak body doesn't matter that much to its
success.  The awareness the AFL brand carries must drive people to seek
out and participate in their local clubs - not seek out the governing
body.  In LA's case you want awareness of open source to cause people to
seek out clubs, conferences, and organisations like the Ada Initiative.

But back to the "AFL Commission" is the peak body thing.  (Bianca if you
are still reading at this point it's your own fault.)  I can almost hear
you objecting strongly to this, but before more emails are sent I'll ask
you to read the references.  First, please do read the Wikipedia pages
on the organisation [0] and the competition [1].  Two quotes stand out:

- In its role as national and international governing body, the AFL
Commission also controls and delegates development funding for
Australian state and international bodies and leagues.

So it controls the money.  That sounds like a peak body, but one
possible way it may not be is the people running it are appointed by an
even peaker body.  But no, from the same page:

- Commissioners are elected by the 18 AFL clubs, who each are entitled
to make nominations. Should an election be necessary, then the
membership is decided by a vote of the AFL clubs. 

Now I realise I realise you are right in that there is a company called
the Australian Football League and its name and ACN appears on a whole
pile of documents relating to the AFL including club agreements, and
recently the Optus DVR decision.  That might mean it is a peak body, but
it also might mean it is just an entity created by the AFL Commission to
do it's bidding - maybe for legal reasons.

To figure out which, you have to look at the political structure.  The
AFL looks to be a ground up organisation.  Originally there were clubs.
The clubs formed an incorporation to organise games.  It was originally
called the VFL, later renamed to the AFL.  You would expect the clubs to
maintain tight control over this organisation as after all they created
it to service their needs.  They did this by ensuring then people who
ran it were nominated and elected by them.  Then in 1993 as [2]
explains, that incorporated entity disbanded itself and ceded power to
the AFL Commission which is also run by people exclusively elected by
the clubs.

The point being the AFL is ultimately operated by the clubs - and that
is unlikely to change.  So if the company is the peak body it must also
be owned an operated by the clubs, so the clubs must elect two sets of
people - one set to operate the AFL Commission, and one to operate the
company.  This sounds like an inefficient way of doing things - it would
be far easier to just have the AFL Commission own the company.  Since I
can't find a single document that says the company is the peak body, for
now I'm going with that arrangement.

Gad this is off getting topic, but I think how other successful
organisations operate is relevant.  What happened in the lead up to 1993
is interesting.  It appears a decade before the then VFL board decided
to offload all the grunge work of actually organising the competition to
the AFL commission.  (If you have kids you will know this really *is*
grunge work - organising grounds, time tables, coaches, getting players
from A to B, publishing results, fighting over the best way to deploy
funding.  It's time consuming mind numbing stuff.)  I'd even guess they
justified it by saying they were freeing themselves to do the important
"visionary stuff".  But in the end it is the grunge work that matters.
If the competition and clubs work the organisation will grow through its
grass roots.  That is, after all, the only way an organisation like the
AFL or indeed LA can grow.  But if that is what the grunge work
accomplishes, what is the point of the visionary stuff?  After a decade
or so on the spin off eat its mother.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFL_Commission

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_rules_football

[2]
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/2504/default.asp
x

_______________________________________________
linux-aus mailing list
linux-aus@...
http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/linux-aus
Adam Redman | 30 Apr 13:50 2012
Picon

Re: Should we change? Yes. To change is to grow.

I wish I could unsubscribe from this discussion...

-----Original Message-----
From: linux-aus-bounces@...
[mailto:linux-aus-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Russell
Stuart
Sent: Monday, 30 April 2012 8:26 PM
To: James Polley
Cc: linux-aus@...
Subject: Re: [Linux-aus] Should we change? Yes. To change is to grow.

On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 17:57 +1000, James Polley wrote:

> No. The "AFL Commission" is *not* "the AFL peak body", which is what 
> you were asking about.

This is as you said pointless irrelevant pedantry, but you've force me
to go looking.  As far as I can tell you are wrong.  The peak body is
the AFL Commission.

Before going on I'd recommend others following along don't read on, but
I'll just point out the relevance to this discussion is no one
apparently knows who that peak body is - which sort of drums home the
point that the name of the peak body doesn't matter that much to its
success.  The awareness the AFL brand carries must drive people to seek
out and participate in their local clubs - not seek out the governing
body.  In LA's case you want awareness of open source to cause people to
seek out clubs, conferences, and organisations like the Ada Initiative.

But back to the "AFL Commission" is the peak body thing.  (Bianca if you
are still reading at this point it's your own fault.)  I can almost hear
you objecting strongly to this, but before more emails are sent I'll ask
you to read the references.  First, please do read the Wikipedia pages
on the organisation [0] and the competition [1].  Two quotes stand out:

- In its role as national and international governing body, the AFL
Commission also controls and delegates development funding for
Australian state and international bodies and leagues.

So it controls the money.  That sounds like a peak body, but one
possible way it may not be is the people running it are appointed by an
even peaker body.  But no, from the same page:

- Commissioners are elected by the 18 AFL clubs, who each are entitled
to make nominations. Should an election be necessary, then the
membership is decided by a vote of the AFL clubs. 

Now I realise I realise you are right in that there is a company called
the Australian Football League and its name and ACN appears on a whole
pile of documents relating to the AFL including club agreements, and
recently the Optus DVR decision.  That might mean it is a peak body, but
it also might mean it is just an entity created by the AFL Commission to
do it's bidding - maybe for legal reasons.

To figure out which, you have to look at the political structure.  The
AFL looks to be a ground up organisation.  Originally there were clubs.
The clubs formed an incorporation to organise games.  It was originally
called the VFL, later renamed to the AFL.  You would expect the clubs to
maintain tight control over this organisation as after all they created
it to service their needs.  They did this by ensuring then people who
ran it were nominated and elected by them.  Then in 1993 as [2]
explains, that incorporated entity disbanded itself and ceded power to
the AFL Commission which is also run by people exclusively elected by
the clubs.

The point being the AFL is ultimately operated by the clubs - and that
is unlikely to change.  So if the company is the peak body it must also
be owned an operated by the clubs, so the clubs must elect two sets of
people - one set to operate the AFL Commission, and one to operate the
company.  This sounds like an inefficient way of doing things - it would
be far easier to just have the AFL Commission own the company.  Since I
can't find a single document that says the company is the peak body, for
now I'm going with that arrangement.

Gad this is off getting topic, but I think how other successful
organisations operate is relevant.  What happened in the lead up to 1993
is interesting.  It appears a decade before the then VFL board decided
to offload all the grunge work of actually organising the competition to
the AFL commission.  (If you have kids you will know this really *is*
grunge work - organising grounds, time tables, coaches, getting players
from A to B, publishing results, fighting over the best way to deploy
funding.  It's time consuming mind numbing stuff.)  I'd even guess they
justified it by saying they were freeing themselves to do the important
"visionary stuff".  But in the end it is the grunge work that matters.
If the competition and clubs work the organisation will grow through its
grass roots.  That is, after all, the only way an organisation like the
AFL or indeed LA can grow.  But if that is what the grunge work
accomplishes, what is the point of the visionary stuff?  After a decade
or so on the spin off eat its mother.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFL_Commission

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_rules_football

[2]
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/2504/default.asp
x

_______________________________________________
linux-aus mailing list
linux-aus@...
http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/linux-aus
James Polley | 30 Apr 09:06 2012
Picon

Re: Should we change? Yes. To change is to grow.



On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Chris Neugebauer <chrisjrn-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 11:19, Russell Stuart
<russell-linuxaus <at> stuart.id.au> wrote:
>
> My own preference is an organisation's name tells you what it does (you
> can probably guess of what I think of MBF changing their name to Bupa),
> LA's name hasn't (ever?) reflected what it does, so a change wasn't a
> bad thing.  However, I also thought no one outside of LA's membership
> had dealings with it, so as a practical matter the name was not that
> important.  It's a bit like the AFL I guess.  I don't follow the game,
> but I do know who our local team is.  It is sort of unavoidable as the
> local team are a very active part of the community - sponsoring school
> coaches, sports ground equipment with their name emblazoned on it and of
> course is on every TV, radio and newspaper on a weekly basis.  This is
> probably a consequence of the AFL peak body doing their job well in
> ensuring the local team has the knowledge and organisational skills
> needed to get their name out there and well known  - but the odd thing
> is I don't have a clue what the AFL peak body is called.
>

Hilariously, you *do* actually know what it's called.  It's "AFL".  In
this case, the AFL has done a fantastic job of making themselves
completely indistinguishable from the sport they represent (Australian
Rules Football) to the casual observer.

https://connectonline.asic.gov.au/RegistrySearch/faces/landing/SearchRegisters.jspx?_adf.ctrl-state=1c8klnhmqp_4 has the company's details (including details of the former name, Victorian Football League)
 

This is one example of a brand that changed its name -- from the
*Victorian* Football League to the *Australian* Football League --
which represented its changing focus throughout the 1980s.  The result
was that more teams from outside Victoria became interested in
participating in their organisation.

That's the sort of recognition our organisation should have when it
comes to Free and Open Source software issues.  It's a great example
of a name change being used to capture mind share beyond its original
constituency.

--Chris

--
--Christopher Neugebauer

Jabber: chrisjrn-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org -- IRC: chrisjrn on irc.freenode.net --
AIM: chrisjrn157 -- MSN: chris <at> neugebauer.id.au -- WWW:
http://chris.neugebauer.id.au -- Twitter/Identi.ca: <at> chrisjrn

_______________________________________________
linux-aus mailing list
linux-aus-cunTk1MwBs8iFSDQTTA3OPd9D2ou9A/h@public.gmane.orgu
http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/linux-aus

_______________________________________________
linux-aus mailing list
linux-aus@...
http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/linux-aus
Bianca Gibson | 30 Apr 11:25 2012
Picon

Re: Should we change? Yes. To change is to grow.

I think we've gone a little off topic...

On 30 April 2012 17:06, James Polley <jamezpolley-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:


On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Chris Neugebauer <chrisjrn <at> gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 11:19, Russell Stuart
<russell-linuxaus-M7Clnf/pV6IXC2x5gXVKYQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
> My own preference is an organisation's name tells you what it does (you
> can probably guess of what I think of MBF changing their name to Bupa),
> LA's name hasn't (ever?) reflected what it does, so a change wasn't a
> bad thing.  However, I also thought no one outside of LA's membership
> had dealings with it, so as a practical matter the name was not that
> important.  It's a bit like the AFL I guess.  I don't follow the game,
> but I do know who our local team is.  It is sort of unavoidable as the
> local team are a very active part of the community - sponsoring school
> coaches, sports ground equipment with their name emblazoned on it and of
> course is on every TV, radio and newspaper on a weekly basis.  This is
> probably a consequence of the AFL peak body doing their job well in
> ensuring the local team has the knowledge and organisational skills
> needed to get their name out there and well known  - but the odd thing
> is I don't have a clue what the AFL peak body is called.
>

Hilariously, you *do* actually know what it's called.  It's "AFL".  In
this case, the AFL has done a fantastic job of making themselves
completely indistinguishable from the sport they represent (Australian
Rules Football) to the casual observer.

https://connectonline.asic.gov.au/RegistrySearch/faces/landing/SearchRegisters.jspx?_adf.ctrl-state=1c8klnhmqp_4 has the company's details (including details of the former name, Victorian Football League)
 

This is one example of a brand that changed its name -- from the
*Victorian* Football League to the *Australian* Football League --
which represented its changing focus throughout the 1980s.  The result
was that more teams from outside Victoria became interested in
participating in their organisation.

That's the sort of recognition our organisation should have when it
comes to Free and Open Source software issues.  It's a great example
of a name change being used to capture mind share beyond its original
constituency.

--Chris

--
--Christopher Neugebauer

Jabber: chrisjrn <at> gmail.com -- IRC: chrisjrn on irc.freenode.net --
AIM: chrisjrn157 -- MSN: chris-l6wSiRd57sPS6catDFTbUg@public.gmane.org -- WWW:
http://chris.neugebauer.id.au -- Twitter/Identi.ca: <at> chrisjrn

_______________________________________________
linux-aus mailing list
linux-aus <at> lists.linux.org.au
http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/linux-aus


_______________________________________________
linux-aus mailing list
linux-aus-cunTk1MwBs8iFSDQTTA3OPd9D2ou9A/h@public.gmane.orgu
http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/linux-aus


_______________________________________________
linux-aus mailing list
linux-aus@...
http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/linux-aus
Silvia Pfeiffer | 1 May 02:15 2012
Picon

Re: Should we change? Yes. To change is to grow.

Yes, but it did give me an idea for a name.

How about "Australian Open Source Council"?

Cheers,
Silvia.

On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 7:25 PM, Bianca Gibson
<bianca.rachel.gibson@...> wrote:
> I think we've gone a little off topic...
>
>
> On 30 April 2012 17:06, James Polley <jamezpolley@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Chris Neugebauer <chrisjrn@...>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 11:19, Russell Stuart
>>> <russell-linuxaus@...> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > My own preference is an organisation's name tells you what it does (you
>>> > can probably guess of what I think of MBF changing their name to Bupa),
>>> > LA's name hasn't (ever?) reflected what it does, so a change wasn't a
>>> > bad thing.  However, I also thought no one outside of LA's membership
>>> > had dealings with it, so as a practical matter the name was not that
>>> > important.  It's a bit like the AFL I guess.  I don't follow the game,
>>> > but I do know who our local team is.  It is sort of unavoidable as the
>>> > local team are a very active part of the community - sponsoring school
>>> > coaches, sports ground equipment with their name emblazoned on it and
>>> > of
>>> > course is on every TV, radio and newspaper on a weekly basis.  This is
>>> > probably a consequence of the AFL peak body doing their job well in
>>> > ensuring the local team has the knowledge and organisational skills
>>> > needed to get their name out there and well known  - but the odd thing
>>> > is I don't have a clue what the AFL peak body is called.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Hilariously, you *do* actually know what it's called.  It's "AFL".  In
>>> this case, the AFL has done a fantastic job of making themselves
>>> completely indistinguishable from the sport they represent (Australian
>>> Rules Football) to the casual observer.
>>
>>
>>
>> https://connectonline.asic.gov.au/RegistrySearch/faces/landing/SearchRegisters.jspx?_adf.ctrl-state=1c8klnhmqp_4 has
>> the company's details (including details of the former name, Victorian
>> Football League)
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This is one example of a brand that changed its name -- from the
>>> *Victorian* Football League to the *Australian* Football League --
>>> which represented its changing focus throughout the 1980s.  The result
>>> was that more teams from outside Victoria became interested in
>>> participating in their organisation.
>>>
>>> That's the sort of recognition our organisation should have when it
>>> comes to Free and Open Source software issues.  It's a great example
>>> of a name change being used to capture mind share beyond its original
>>> constituency.
>>>
>>> --Chris
>>>
>>> --
>>> --Christopher Neugebauer
>>>
>>> Jabber: chrisjrn@... -- IRC: chrisjrn on irc.freenode.net --
>>> AIM: chrisjrn157 -- MSN: chris@... -- WWW:
>>> http://chris.neugebauer.id.au -- Twitter/Identi.ca:  <at> chrisjrn
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> linux-aus mailing list
>>> linux-aus@...
>>> http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/linux-aus
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> linux-aus mailing list
>> linux-aus@...
>> http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/linux-aus
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-aus mailing list
> linux-aus@...
> http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/linux-aus
>
Chris Neugebauer | 1 May 05:11 2012
Picon

Re: Should we change? Yes. To change is to grow.


On May 1, 2012 1:01 PM, "Silvia Pfeiffer" <silvia-lSAyKcXyPXNbzNOwmYRlYIQuADTiUCJX@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
> Yes, but it did give me an idea for a name.
>
> How about "Australian Open Source Council"?

I like this -- it gives a strong impression of the main organisation as an oversight body, with the subcommittees being separate bodies that cover their own specific Open Source-related communities.

It's also clear that a body called 'Linux Australia' would fit under a body with such a name.

--Chris

_______________________________________________
linux-aus mailing list
linux-aus@...
http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/linux-aus
Stewart Smith | 30 Apr 06:15 2012

Re: Should we change? Yes. To change is to grow.

On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 17:13:32 +1000, Donna Benjamin <donna@...> wrote:
> Chris' explanation of the pycon experience mirrors some of my experience
> running drupal downunder. We had sponsors who wouldn't dream of
> supporting LCA. However I didn't have any of them question paying their
> money to Linux Australia.

This is good to hear, for events that aren't Linux-centric, it doesn't
seem to be a problem. It has been the reality for many years that LA is
in fact "Free Software Australia" (or somethin) - and this has mostly
come about due to the awesome work of many council members in being
inclusive rather than exclusive.

> But - there were definitely questions amongst the drupal community
> leadership about why the linux community gets to keep all "our" profits.
> Because there was a very strong perception that the linux community did
> not welcome the more web focussed open source drupal community. 

The good news is that such concerns have been unwarranted. The fact is
that LA is the most effective national body on free software. AUUG died
and OSIA is only focussed on industry and sometimes makes "I'm not dead"
noises from a rickety cart in a Monty Python film. (no disrespect to
OSIA here, but I think everyone can agree it has waves of enthusiasm
rather than a sustained streak).

> Here's a grab bag list of other data points to think about:
> 
> OSDC conf was originally started because they felt excluded by LCA.
> (OSDC folks - correct me please)

I've tried many times to describe the relationship between and the
differences between LCA and OSDC.

The best I've come up with is:
LCA: developers of
OSDC: developers using

and both of those are "for the most part". I find OSDC an awesome
conference to go to and talk to people, but I attend more sessions at
LCA - and that's distinctly me - I know many people for whom it is the
other way around.

> OSIA was founded by some who felt linux australia was a little too
> aggressively anti-business and formed an incorporated entity to cater to
> the concerns of businesses providing open source services and
> solutions.

The usual pattern for OSIA is as soon as I wonder if it still exists or
is relevant, a bunch of people have renewed enthusiasm to make things
happen again... so I'm kind of sad I don't question their reason for
being more :)

> The Australian Digital Alliance also carries on some of the advocacy we
> care about, as does Electronic Frontiers Australia.

I've certainly heard a lot more from EFA - and I think their goals are
sufficiently different that it's good for them to exist
independently - while LA may dabble in similar areas, it's certainly not
the core focus.

As always, any name change must reflect the strengths of the org and
what it wants to be. The Linux Australia name has served us really quite
well over these interesting years.

> SLUG's experience of reforming as a sub-ctte is awesome!  And jamez
> story highlights the strength and maturity of Linux Australia as an
> organisation, and the kind of support its frameworks are now able to
> deliver to smaller foss groups.

In my opinion, this is a big win for the community. There are a decent
number of us now who understand how much work goes into an organisation
such as LUV or SLUG simply existing, let alone doing anything
constructive as an orginasiation.

> I did not follow suit with LUV when I was President as I felt it might
> jeopardise our excellent relationship with the Victorian State
> Government when it came to securing funding for events such as Software
> Freedom Day & Barcamps.  My successors did not value the approach we
> took to SFD, so perhaps this is no longer a concern.
> 
> The majority of Inkscape users are Windows users.

and while this makes me sad, perhaps it is a good introduction to the
radical notion of freedom... capturing them is not a bad thing.

> As to whether Linux Australia itself, as an organisation, is or isn't
> well known and regarded? We ran a survey 2 years ago, the results of
> which suggested that LA was only recognised by existing members, and
> only some of whom could identify what it does.  Non members were
> generally unaware of Linux Australia, or whether it had anything to do
> with linux.conf.au.

This is a concern... although would a name change help this? How much do
we care?

--

-- 
Stewart Smith

Gmane