[Osia-members] On the future of OSIA (again)

[Jack Burton]

On Sun, 2018-01-14 at 09:09 +1100, Mark Phillips wrote: 
> One further point that needs to be discussed/considered is related to the
> proposed name change of Linux Australia to Open Source Australia.

<...>

> If OSIA is not subsumed into Open Source Australia will it be over shadowed by
> Open Source Australia. How does OSIA prevent this.

Personally, I don't think we should try to second-guess the members of
Linux Australia.

We'll find out in 8 days time what they decide. Even if they do decide
they want to change the LA name to OSA, my understanding is that
they'll then need a further general meeting to give formal effect to
the name change.

The time required for LA to convene such an SGM should give OSIA
sufficient time to decide what *our* strategy in response to their name
change will be, if any.

The new OSIA board will also need to think about how best to
collaborate with the LA/OSA of the future ... as whatever they're
called they'll still be an important part of the overall .au FOSS
ecosystem.

> Should OSIA be subsumed within Open Source Australia and thus OSIA
> should be wound up?

That question is really orthogonal to whether or not LA changes its
name.

The main factor in deciding whether OSIA is to be wound up or not will
be whether we see sufficient commitment to its continued existence (in
the form of responses to the call for EoIs to serve on the new board).

If we do, then OSIA will continue -- and the LA name change will become
a question of brand strategy for the new OSIA board to consider.

If we do not, then the most likely outcome is that OSIA will be wound
up.

In that case, the members in general meeting will need to nominate a
beneficiary for OSIA's residual assets (at yet another SGM, after the
interim board lodges a Form 530 with ASIC).

Linux Australia (whatever they're called at that point) would be one
obvious candidate for such a beneficiary. There may well be other
candidate organisations too.

The greatest issue I see with OSIA being "subsumed into" LA/OSA as you
put it, is that I cannot see how a *community* body (even one as
phenomenally successful as LA), whose members by definition are all
*individuals*, could ever claim *credibly* to represent the *industry*
(which by definition is composed of businesses)...

...and as I've said before my view is that OSIA's principal purpose
*is* to represent the .au FOSS industry.

But I think we're getting well ahead of ourselves here.

The immediate question for OSIA to resolve is whether there are a
sufficient number of suitable people prepared to commit to serving on
the 2018 board.

We will know the answer to that question after the call for EoIs has
closed and the informal poll has been held at the January SGM.

In the meantime, I think the most useful things for us to discuss on
this list are, assuming that OSIA does not wind up, what it's future
direction should be and who will step up to lead it (and possibly also
how the new board should operate).

There's been some good discussion on the first & last of those matters
already and I'd encourage that to continue...

...but at some point soon we will need to start seeing some EoIs
lodged, so that we can make some progress toward answering the "who?"
as well.