--- Begin Message ---
On Fri, 2003-01-03 at 12:40, Paul Lussier wrote:
> In a message dated: 03 Jan 2003 11:40:04 EST
> Rob Lembree said:
>
> >Here's my cut at an agenda, along with my thoughts (and I think yours too):
>
> I don't like it when people put thoughts in my head. It's already
> too crowded in there, and I just got finished with a 2 week hiatus
> which cleared out my brain. No thoughts allowed ;)
>
> > * GNHLUG Mission Statement
> >
> > I'm not sure that GNHLUG has ever had a written mission
> > statement.
>
> No, we haven't
>
> >
> > Open Source Software Education and Advocacy
>
> Open Source Software, Education, and Advocacy!
>
> (I'm a stickler on proper punctuation)
There should be no punctuation! I'm trying to say that we educate on
and advocate the use of open source software. It's not a list of 3
things.
> > The mission statement should be the guiding principle of the
> > LUG, and should be considered in all pursuits of the LUG. If
> > something that we do doesn't fit in the statement, we need to
> > reconsider whether or not we should be doing that activity, or
> > changing the mission of the organization. If we're failing to
> > live up to the mission, we need to change what we're doing so
> > that we do live up to the mission.
>
> The current "mission" seems to be:
>
> 'the pursuit of socialization, beer drinking, and productive
> procrastination'
Ya...
> Many seem to like things this way. We may risk losing a large number
> of the existing "membership" doing what we propose. We have to be
> prepared for this, and the inevitable result that we'll be the only
> ones left to do all the work until we can attract new people who are
> interested in sharing the workload.
I don't think that this'll happen. We'll still do a lot of that.
I do expect that the people who see it as a chance to get away from
the kids for a few beers and a burger won't be the same people doing
things though. Any organization's going to have slackers. ;-)
> > * Goals For First Year Towards Achieving Mission
> >
> > I'd like to propose that we attempt to organize a community
> > outreach someplace in the state at lease once a month. We
> > should organize such efforts six months in advance, and expect
> > that the membership share this work. I have just completed the
> > first such event with a talk at the Henniker Rotary Club. I've
> > also roped a few volunteers into delivering talks that are
> > already developed, in the interest of seeding the monthly
> > program schedule, so that our membership can begin planning for
> > six months out (for a June or July event).
> >
> > I don't believe that our meetings (as they've been) qualify as
> > "education and advocacy", because I believe that our meetings
> > have traditionally be held for the benefit of the membership
> > (not the community). Of particular exception however is Rob
> > Anderson's recent series on intro to Unix/Linux at UNH. This is
> > an ideal example of the kind of outreach that we need to be
> > doing.
>
> I sort of disagree here. The meetings to date have been held
> primarily for the benefit of the (existing) membership, but we've
> always welcomed and encouraged new members. Unfortunately, the
> topics of discussion were usually sufficiently advanced such that
> only those who already used Linux were likely to attend.
But we've never actively gone out to bring people in. Implicitly,
it's been a closed meeting. How would anyone ever know about it
without first showing some interest?
> However, I do think there is a tremendous amount of potential to use
> the existing "regular meeting" schedule/infrastructure in our quest
> for Education and Outreach.
Yes.
> There are currently 4 or 5 meetings being held in different areas of
> the state on a (mostly) regular basis. These [c,sh]ould be used to
> *re-enforce* the new activities/events you/we are thinking of.
Agreed.
> IOW, if there is local event at say Barne's & Noble in Nashua about
> Intro to Linux, we should be advertising what the upcoming meetings
> are around the state. We should also attempt to co-ordinate the
> meeting topics for that month *around* what the local event is.
Absolutely agreed.
> So if the local event is "Intro to Linux", the upcoming meetings
> should be something which expands upon that idea. Maybe Nashua does
> "Connecting to the Internet w/ Linux", SLUG does "Intro to Office
> Suites", and maybe Keene does something like "Sync'ing your PDA".
Fair enough.
> > * Formalizing The Organization
>
> (people are going to *hate* this idea :)
Some people will, but it shouldn't affect them. This'll only affect
people who volunteer to pitch in.
> > I propose that we formalize our membership. This
> > doesn't mean that we need to do anything special, but it
> > may be reasonable to have some minimal hoop to jump
> > through to be a member. I think that there are a lot of
> > people on the mail list that don't really care about
> > meetings because they're in Zaire. Should they be
> > considered members with a vote?
>
> What about keeping an open "membership" but having a formalized "Activities Board" ?
> That way we don't exclude anyone, or, for that matter, upset those
> who consider themselves to currently be "members". Members of the
> "Activities Board" would then be the only ones who have a "vote".
> Anyone can be a memeber of the AB, but they have to be vetted and/or
> appointed by some means (TBD later).
We can discuss this on Monday. I expected that this would have
generated the largest amount of discussion.
> > I further propose that we eventually transition this
> > from a benevolent dictatorship to a simple election
> > process. We can do voting online, and do so on a
> > regular basis (such as annually).
>
> Sure. How do I do nominate my replacement ;)
For the moment, you're stuck. ;-) I'd expect that it'd remain
a benevolent dictatorship until the bootup process is complete.
> > Another part of formalizing will involve signing up
> > people to do work. I dislike the term 'committee', so
> > I'd prefer to think of these people and their groups as
> > daemons or subtasks. ;-)
>
> The AB could be the 'inittab' which 'execs processes' (i.e. events).
> Each 'spawned process' would have 'threads' (i.e. the monthly
> meetings around the state). There would obviously need to be 'daemons'
> (the organizing body for the 'process') overseeing everything.
You and I are the kernel. ;-)
> > Let's begin by assuming that the chapter chairs will
> > take care of lining up talks, and will keep in touch
> > with everyone else in the leadership group, so that we
> > have good communication.
>
> That works. We sort of do that now, though without the IPC between
> chapter chairs :)
Right.
>
> > After that though, I'm thinking that groups concerning
> > themselves with publicity, etc. may make sense. This
> > way, if we're trying to put together a talk at a local
> > bookstore in July, there's someone who's in the know
> > about publicizing this kind of stuff can help out, and
> > can call upon others to help.
>
> I'd like to see things evolve to this level. I think it might be a
> while in getting there though.
Not if we find a few brave souls to pick up the task.
> > * Developing a Charter
> >
> > As soon as we have formality, we should have a charter
> > that describes how the organization works. The charter
> > is also a requirement of....
> >
> > * Not-For-Profit Filing
> >
>
> > It's not clear to me why we declined to proceed with this,
> > but I suspect that there was a reluctance, or perhaps
> > the lack of a perceived need, to formalize our
> > organization.
>
> Well, that's part of it. I think the biggest reason was that people
> like not having any formality associated with the group, and that
> given the current "charter/mission" fomalization, and therefore, NFP
> filing was both overkill, and too much effort for no real perceived
> gain.
Isn't that what I said basically?
> Doing what we're talking about though, dictates that we do formalize
> to some extent and makes NFP filing a no-brainer for the reasons
> you've specified.
Right.
>
> > On our immediate wish list is a data projector!
>
> I've been trying to get one of these for 3 years now, but it's really
> hard when you have no money :( I was really hoping MCL was going to
> auction off one the 3 they had, so I could get one cheap, but they didn't.
We'll work on this as soon as we can formalize.
> > In summary, I feel that GNHLUG can be a truly meaningful
> > organization to the people in the communities which we serve
> > (and I do believe that we should think of ourselves and conduct
> > ourselves as a service organization). To do this, we need
> > direction (a plan), organization (people who are expected to do
> > specific work), and execution (we start Monday). I feel that we
> > have the opportunity to be the prototype of how LUGs can work.
>
> I agree whole-heartedly with this sentiment. However, I think it's
> also going to require a *lot* of work and we're likely to lose a
> significant portion of existing "members" given the fomalization/
> re-structuring we are proposing.
I don't think that anyone's going to leave because of this. As I said,
I think it'll only affect the volunteers. The membership doesn't need
to see the formality, really. As long as the organizers are organized,
the only part that everyone else will see is 1) being asked to serve
eventually, and 2) voting for leaders, neither of which is compulsory.
> Other than that, I think what you outline is exactly what we've been
> discussing. I'd like to, at some point, get down to the specifics of
> execution and indentifying our target audiences, etc. but obviously
> that comes later.
Right.
> One last comment and one question:
>
> I think that to do this on the GNHLUG level as co-chair is going to
> require more time than currently have, given that I'm also the Nashua
> chapter chair. Where do you want me? :)
Right where you are at the moment.
> (personally, I'm a little tired of the chapter thing ;)
Well, we can share that role too, if you'd like.
I'd like to get a talk for the Jan quarterly meeting (propose Jan. 22?)
about Linux advocacy, and how we view the LUG fitting in. We need
to present this somehow, and that may be a good time for a call to
arms.
Are you OK with my sending out what I wrote, with this email
following (i.e., we got the discussion going?)
r
--
Rob Lembree Metro Link Incorporated
29 Milk St. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nashua, NH 03064-1651 http://www.metrolink.com
Phone: 954.660.2460 Alternate: 603.577.9714
PGP: 1F EE F8 58 30 F1 B1 20 C5 4F 12 21 AD 0D 6B 29
--- End Message ---
