Bruce McCulley wrote:
> I think a lot of the proposed agenda items (subchapter pros/cons, proposed
> subchapters) should not require a lot of meeting time. From the recent
> discussions on the mailing lists it seems like the subchapter structure has
> garnered a significant consensus, the biggest questions now seem to be defining
> the details not deciding whether or not to move in that direction. Subchapter
> criteria might be the biggest bone of contention, maybe also putting names to
> jobs (although I'd contend that the organization meeting should give higher
> priority to a general solution of how that gets done than to doing it for
> specific cases at this time, so that need not be a major time sink).
I hope that this is the case, so that we can devote most of the time to getting
a new structure organized. I think that your assessment is pretty much right on,
that there seems to be a certain amount of concensus.
> Another topic that seems like it should be on the agenda and doesn't seem to be
> is discussion of the statewide chapter or steering committee or whatever it turns
> out to be. There doesn't seem to be anything on the proposed agenda to define
> the role or purpose of the statewide chapter as the subchapters get going. I'd
> expect that responsibility for NUN and BUN meetings would be amongst the things
> that would be more appropriate for the statewide organization rather than the
> local subchapters, but that's just MHO. The other big thing would be support for
> local chapters, and maybe an occasional statewide event (but not too often!).
I've considered that what we do have now purports to be statewide. We do need to
discuss the composition of a GNHLUG steering committee though, the role of GNHLUG
as a whole, etc. Those ideas are in the agenda, but they're near the bottom. My
initial thought is that subchapters could nominate a few people to sit on the
GNHLUG steering committee, and that the GNHLUG steerign committee could assist with
combined publicity, organizing GNHLUG-wide meetings occasionally, ensuring that
meeting schedules across the subchapters make sense, distributing goodies to
subchapters as they become available, and so on. Less of a meeting planning role
and more of an organizational role.
So ya, it's at least implicit in the agenda.
> Also, I thought there had been an agreement to add discussion of the BUN planning
> to the agenda for tonight's meeting, during discussion of that topic on the list
> recently. Maybe this should be taken offline, perhaps it should be a topic for
> the steering committee, but that seems likely to push it out much farther into
> the future, and perhaps to push it out of the mainstream. My suggestion is that
> we discuss the BUN planning enough to get a consensus within the entire group,
> then let the steering committee handle the project from there, how does that
> sound to other folks?
I hope we have this much time, but I doubt it.
Re: steering committee taking on BUNs, I would think that this is past the steering
committee's peruse at this point, since there are a number of people already going
great guns on this. I would think that we're at a good point where the steering
committee
recognizes a group of people as a BUN subcommittee... :-)
r
--
Rob Lembree Linux Development Group
Silicon Graphics, Inc. http://www.sgi.com
29 Milk St. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nashua, NH 03064-1651 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone: 603-577-9714 FAX: 650-932-4423
PGP: 1F EE F8 58 30 F1 B1 20 C5 4F 12 21 AD 0D 6B 29
