[plug] Thanks to Daniel and Artifactory; Future Talks; Other Events; Projects; Housekeeping; Feedback

[Tim Bowden]

On 9 March 2011 16:37, James Bromberger <james at rcpt.to> wrote:
> On 9/03/2011 4:17 PM, Tim Bowden wrote:
>
> Is there any need for PLUG to still be incorporated?  I believe SLUG
> is looking at the possibility of being a subcommittee of LA as an
> alternative to incorporation for when legal/insurance/financial issues
> need to be looked after.
>
> Just a thought.
>
> Tim Bowden
>
> Hi Tim,
>
> Thanks for the question. This is something we've been watching very closely.
> James Polley, current president of SLUG, is putting a motion to the SLUG
> AGM. Its not been ratified by the membership, but its a reasonable idea.
> SLUG would (if passed) wind up, give all its assets to LA, and LA wound then
> form a sub committee for LA Sydney, appoint two officers to the
> sub-committee, and then have elections to the rest of the sub-committee,
> from what I recall. LA would/could issue a bank account for the sub
> committee. SLUG has been chargin $25/year for membership, and spending
> $800/year on insurance (which we haven't been). LA's insurance would then
> cover the sub-committee and its activities, LA would regulate and supply
> funding. LA will also supply hosting for web site, mailing list, etc, and
> admin team to look after this (they've already offered this to us, but we
> have our own arrangements already and have done for many years).
>
> The entity that was SLUG would no longer need its own incorporation,
> constitution, Public Officer, mail box, tax returns, etc. SLUG apparently
> has around 40 financial members (PLUG is around 33). As to tax returns;
> Incorporated bodies in NSW are required to submit tax returns; PLUG is not
> currently required to submit tax returns in WA.
>
> This is all very appealing to me, but at the same time, being on control of
> ones own destinty, finances, and policy is another. As Linux Australia is
> based in NSW, there is a general feel that the overlap there is great. I
> spoke with Linux Australia President John Felito yesterday about this.
> Apparently the feeling is that Brisbane won't become a sub-committee;
> they're too active and independent.
>
> The regional LUGs have nominally and voluntarily come under the umbrella of
> LA when LCA has been on; this reorganisation would make this arrangement
> more concrete.
>
> Of course, one could say that to run a LUG, you don't need any
> administrative overhead; you chose a venue, you get together, and that's it.
> The decision taken a long time ago to incoporate offered the organising
> participants (who became the committee) some legal protection, plus gave the
> organisation a recognised identity so it can have a bank account, etc. When
> the world was a much more distributed place, this was useful. In our ever
> more connected space we live, perhaps this is redundant.
>
> From the committee meetings we have had at PLUG, the desire has been to take
> a "wait and see" approach. I suspect that by the end of the year, we'll have
> a feel for how successful this is, and what the draw backs are. At the same
> time, one needs to consider the advantages of offloading this overhead, to
> the advantages of having that structure at YOUR (PLUG's, the local
> community's) disposal.
>
> What does the rest of the membership feel about this? I suspect the
> cessation movement that rears its head every few years may have some bearing
> here! ;)
>
>
>   James
>
> --
> Mobile: +61 422 166 708, Email: james_AT_rcpt.to

I started to write a detailed reply to this, then deleted it when I
realised it boiled down to this:  Downside of being an LA subcommittee
is /mostly/ emotionally driven factually unsupported arguments (at
least, those arguments I could think of), upside is practical reality
(insurance, legal liability) being made simpler for us.  For me that
about sums it up.  Still a debate that needs to be explored obviously.

Regards,
Tim Bowden