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

Cameron Shorter cameron.shorter at gmail.com
Mon Jan 15 21:47:24 AEDT 2018


Hi Jack,

I do see things a little differently. I think that the interests of the 
Open Source communities align closely to Open Source Industry, and both 
individuals and industry can contribute equally toward lobbying for 
positive Open initiatives, and can do so under the same banner.

Would a separate Australian Open Source industry body provide sufficient 
value to justify funding a separate lobbying arm? If we don't get 
volunteers stepping up, then I think we are voting with our feet.

How could this work? I've seen it work successfully with the 
international Open Source Geospatial Foundation.

1. An Open Source Foundation was set up with template vision, 
principles, voting procedures, group structures etc.

2. Activities (such as open source promotion) are mostly run by 
individual volunteers. I've found open source people generally agree on 
what lobbying should be done, the challenge is finding enough people 
willing to volunteer to write lobbying documentation.

3. There is a little business sponsorship, which is acknowledged on the 
website.

4. Sponsorship goes a long way when it is used to support volunteers.

Cheers, Cameron


On 15/1/18 5:07 pm, Jack Burton wrote:
> 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?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Osia-members mailing list
> Osia-members at lists.osia.com.au
> https://lists.osia.com.au/listinfo/osia-members

-- 
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier, Learnosity
Open Technologies Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254



More information about the Osia-members mailing list