Benjamin Scott said:
> On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Lori Hitchcock wrote:
> > Effective immediately I must resign as co-chair of SLUG and as chair of
> > the LBS.
>
> Please reply to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
>
> Obviously, we need to find a new coordinator for this thing.
>
> Which raises another question: Do we even want to bother with this thing?
>
> I have not seen nor heard anything about the LBS for many months. The -org
> list has had nothing on it about it. In my eyes, it is effectively dead.
> This is not a criticism of anybody (especially Lori!), just an observation.
>
> If we are going to attempt such a thing, we should do it right, or not at
> all. It appears we are not prepared to handle an event of this magnitude at
> this time. Rather then committing to something beyond our capabilities, we
> should realize our limitations and cancel it. We can always start the idea up
> again if we become more ambitions in the future.
Hopefully someone with the time & connections can get it going. I'm
willing to aid in terms of speakers and tapping what I can of Mission
Critical Linux's show expertise, if someone with more time can find the
place to have it, contact vendors, and overall organize.
However, I do agree ,we need to either have it happen well, or not at all.
>
> Keep in mind that this does not reflect badly on any of us as individuals, or
> on the group as a whole. We do not have to invent the next ALS to be a good
> LUG. We do, however, have to do a good job to be a good LUG. I would rather
> have us do a good job at smaller things than do a bad job at something larger.
>
> This is, of course, my opinion. Feel free to disagree.
>
First step - getting SLUG back up & running - volunteers for the SLUG
leader, anyone?
jeff
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
thought for the day: Sometimes even to live is an act of courage.
-- Seneca
