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

[Jack Burton]

On Mon, 2018-01-15 at 06:05 +1100, Cameron Shorter wrote: 
> Good question Mark. I was unaware of the proposed name change. I'd 
> personally prefer to be associated with 1 strong body which represented 
> both enthusiasts and industry, and managed "the" conference event.
> 
> I think OSIA could achieve the same or better results by lobbying under 
> an Open Source Australia banner? Also there would there be less 
> confusion in the marketplace as to who to listen to.

Cameron, I am a little confused. Could you clarify please.


Are you arguing that the .au FOSS industry no longer *needs* a voice of
its own (as distinct from that of the .au FOSS community). If so, I'm
curious as to *why* you think that the industry doesn't need its own
voice?


Or alternatively, are you arguing that Linux Australia could provide a
credible voice for the industry while *simultaneously* continuing to
provide a credible voice for the community? If so, could you please
explain how that would be possible?

Linux Australia does a fantastic job as Australia's leading FOSS
community body, including (but for many years now not limited to)
running the Australia's (perhaps even the world's?) premiere FOSS
conference, LCA.

In recent years they've started to take some first steps in engaging on
public policy matters from a FOSS community perspective as well, and
that's great to see too.

There's definitely scope for OSIA & Linux Australia to collaborate on
that front (e.g. see my comments on the linux-aus list last month).

But I'm struggling to see how an industry body could have any sort of
meaningful existence (or be even remotely effective) *within* the
structure of a community body.

My understanding is that currently Linux Australia's structure is such
that its members are all individuals, not businesses. How can any
organisation credibly claim to represent businesses which are not even
allowed to become members of it?

Even if LA/OSA restructured such that businesses *could* become members
(a proposal which I have *not* seen floated anywhere to date), the
numbers are such that I cannot see how OSIA being acquired by LA/OSA
could ever have a positive outcome.

FOSS business in Australia number in the hundreds, whereas I'd guess
that the Australian FOSS community (individuals -- professionals and
hobbyists alike) likely numbers in the tens of thousands at least.

That's only natural, since most businesses employ more than one person,
most individuals work for only one business at a time (there are
several of us on this list who serve as exceptions to that rule, but we
are the exceptions, not the rule), and the community as a whole is much
broader than just those who "do FOSS" for a living anyway.

Even if a restructured & rebranded "OSA" manages to achieve 100%
penetration in both markets (the industry & the community), it seems
fairly clear that .au FOSS businesses could never hope to account for
much more than 1% of the LA/OSA total membership (since the community
as a whole is at least 100 times larger than the industry as a whole).

It would seem rather irresponsible for any organisation to give a
strong voice to a constituency comprising only 1% of its members -- and
I'm sure that the LA Council are eminently responsible people who would
not be likely to do such a thing -- after all, they have a duty to
their membership as a whole, so of necessity they must focus on the
other 99%.

So, *even* with a restructured LA/OSA that admitted businesses as
members, I just don't see how it could claim credibly to represent the
.au FOSS *industry*.

Even if by some miracle that arrangement *did* manage to provide a
strong credible voice for the industry, one thing is for certain: with
a combined voting strength of only 1%, the industry would have no
control whatsoever over the future direction of the organisation.

The purpose of free software, as rms himself has often said, is to
guarantee users the freedom to control their own computing. I'm
assuming that that's a goal we all share (otherwise we probably
wouldn't be here in the first place).

Values such as freedom & control / self-determination tend to be
desirable in nearly all fields of endeavour, not only in the software
itself. I find it difficult to reconcile such values with a proposal
for our industry body to be subsumed by an organisation over which we
(meaning those businesses which comprise the .au FOSS industry) would
exercise no control and therefore would no longer have the freedom to
determine for ourselves the present & future directions of the
organisation which represents us.

What am I missing?