Rich Payne wrote:
> 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.
Well, I think that in order for GNHLUG to remain useful as an organization,
there has to be some organization, especially if we're going to foster the
creation of GNHLUG subchapters.
Regarding creating subchapters, you're right, nobody owns title to the name
GNHLUG, and anyone can do anything calling themselves GNHLUG, a subchapter of
GNHLUG, or even supreme dictator of GNHLUG. Would any of this be the right thing
to do without GNHLUG's actually being involved? Probably not. So if you want
to do something, calling yourself GNHLUG-related, who do you talk to? Used to
be maddog.
> 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!
Without some kind of organization in place, GNHLUG will fall apart, and there
will be a bunch of little LUGs around in its place. I think that most would
agree that this would not be the best future.
Basically, we need to put into place some organization to replace maddog,
who was serving as benevolent dictator (reluctant as he was). This was quite
effective, because everyone went to maddog for issues pertaining to GNHLUG
out of respect. I doubt that we could find another benevolent dictator who
everyone would agree on, or who would even want to do all the work involved.
> 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?
We're not trying to formalize any more than necessary. But when it comes time
to locate a space, a speaker, advertising to local media, and doing this all on
a schedule, it makes sense to get those who want to organize to also cooperate.
So I think that the bug goal is to provide a framework for cooperation.
> 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. Please come to the meeting though, you obviously have a
point of view that needs to be considered.
--
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
