So to compile the last two weeks worth of discussion into the proverbial nutshell, keeping it as fun as possible, the main thrust of tonight should be: 1) The discussion of and formation of a GNHLUG Steering Committee, from those willing to participate with one person acting as Chair. (There certainly seems enough interested bodies to achieve this tonight). 2) Still having fun, getting people to declare themselves to working on the NUN and BUN sub-committees 3) Are we having fun yet? Discussion of a preliminary number of GNHLUG meetings for the rest of 2000. Taking into account Dan York's offer to be a speaker ( one meeting already filled). Gee this is easy. 4) Encouragement to those willing to or interested in forming sub-chapters. Yes Dan, you have fun out there in San Francisco while we do the dirty work Jerry >Rich, > >> Am I the only one who thinks we're getting a little to wrapped up in this? >> If people want to form subchapters GNHLUG has no ability/power to stop >> them, if I want to start the "Linux users group for people who live in my >> house" subchapeter I'm going to, and I wouldn't look to GNHLUG for >> approval. > >Agreed. We don't have control over that. > >> I got involved with GNHLUG (and later MonadLUG) because it was fun.... >> what I see proposed below is a group so wrapped up in the organization of >> itself that nothing would get accomplished. The question I'm asking myself >> right now is "How is GNHLUG going to survive?". Now that Maddog has >> stepped down we need somebody (or a group) to take over the duties of >> finding speakers and places to meet, not a group that dictates the rules >> of what qualifies as a subcapter and who will be on which subcommitee! > >You're right that we have to keep it "fun"... and that the groups have to >focus on finding speakers and locations, but unfortunately we do have to >talk about these type of things... perhaps this is the only meeting where >this has to be the whole focus - and out of this the groups can go and >do what LUGs do best. > >> It appears to me that the current approach is to try and apply the big >> business model of management to an inheratly loose knit organization. >> Linux itself is somewhat disorganised....what makes us thing the user >> group should be this formal? >> >> I appologize if this offends anyone, that was not my intention. I just see >> this moving in what I consider a dangerous direction. > >No offense taken... you're right in that too much organization can stifle >the funner aspects of things... OTOH, too little can leave things confused... >the trick is striking the right balance. And that's the challenge... > >My 2 cents, >Dan > >-- >-------------------------------------------------------- >Dan York, Certification Program Manager, Linuxcare, Inc. >[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxcare.com/ >1-603-264-0129 mobile, 603-268-0691 tel, 603-268-0103 fax >Linuxcare. At the center of Linux. >-------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jerry Kubeck Customer Support Appropriate Solutions, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.AppropriateSolutions.com
