How did non-event sub-comittees get formed?

On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 12:21 AM, Russell Coker <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Friday, 2 December 2016 7:46:18 AM AEDT Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> > I kind of think that in practice that 95% of the reason LA is valuable
> > to anyone these days is that it helps people *run* events; and if so,
> > that isn't really valuable to that many people -- the pool of people
> > running open source related events in Australia (and maybe NZ) just
> > isn't that big.
> > Personally, I think of LA as an organisation run by/for open source
> > developers/admins/power users -- so, by and large, it doesn't make
>
> I think the problem here is that LA was traditionally an organisation for
> such
> people, but the LA council is focused on running events etc.  This isn't a
> problem as such, changing the name to "council" with the aim of having
> lots of
> subcommittees was a good idea but it unfortunately didn't get followed
> through.
>
> We need subcommittees for things such as Linux advocacy.  I will consider
> volunteering for such a subcommittee.
>

I was about to respond by pointing to
https://github.com/linuxaustralia/constitution_and_policies/blob/master/subcommittee_policy_v2.md
- but on closer reading, that policy seems to be only for event
subcommittees.

https://github.com/linuxaustralia/constitution_and_policies/blob/master/subcommittee_policy_v1.md
still refers to sub-committees that exist "to facilitate LA's operations
or" as "a project undertaken with the governance of the council"

Could a current council-member confirm that the "v1" policy is the policy
that would apply to a Linux advocacy sub-committee?

_______________________________________________
linux-aus mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linux.org.au/mailman/listinfo/linux-aus