On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 16:04, Rob Lembree wrote: > On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 15:17, Bruce Dawson wrote: > > On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 14:19, Rob Lembree wrote: > > > On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 10:56, Bruce Dawson wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 10:21, Rob Lembree wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 10:06, Bruce Dawson wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 08:26, Ed Lawson wrote: > > > > > > > On 27 Jan 2004 22:13:06 -0500 > > > > > > > Bruce Dawson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ok. That explains that. But can you describe the complete picture and > > what's missing? (I was under the impression that only some signatures > > and claims to responsibility were required - which we had at one point.) > The complete picture is a functional organization that is doing > education about Linux. If I'm not mistaken, the paperwork calls > that out as our purpose. Maybe (but slightly maybe) the mail list > qualifies, our occasional meetings qualify, but there's nothing > else. If we can get projects started and healthy like the library > work, and like Ed's workshop possibility, THEN it makes sense.
Hmmm. I think we dropped something - Ed's workshop possibility - unless he's described this earlier (like: weeks or months ago). But, I believe that, as far as keeping the organization in a operable state, we currently have all that's needed. Of course, its a shell of what it could be, but we can work on that later. > In short, we need to be doing things that fulfills our mission. Or kill ourselves doing it? > > How many of our "members" are on sourceforge projects? I suspect the > > answer is near zero. > I'd believe that. Most of our members are users and sysadmins, or > do coding for hire. I suspected as much. But I've always had the delusions of programmers being at our core. > > Rob: If you put the library on sourceforge or savannah or somesuch, do > > you think you'd get a better response? > Eh, it's a local project, and it needs local contribution. People > burning CDs, printing docs and dropping it off. Ideal for a LUG, > less ideal for a distributed project. I didn't understand that's what was needed of the "library project". For some reason, I got the impression that it needs some programming and presentations, ... > It's not a library package. It's making CDs available for the > library to put out in circulation. I thought that was clear, but > maybe not.... Oh. If that's what's needed, I can burn CDs (and possibly even DVD's, and I need an excuse to try that out). Count me in. (But not until March). I just need the ISO images... > > The projects I would work on have to be *very easy* for me to pick up > > and put down. They would most likely have to be based on savannah or > > sourceforge (if only those tools were more reliable) and they would have > > to be 90% coding and/or documenting. Specifications would have to be at > > least 80% technical, 0% style, and less than 5% political (getting > > buy-in on techniques). Projects meeting those specs are the only ones I > > can afford to work on - even Carole's projects have to meet them! > Here's an example: you like Mandrake for example. A new mandrake > comes along, you download it for yourself anyway, and you burn > an extra copy for the library, print out a 'readme' and deliver > it to the library. Pretty easy, really. Ah ha! Now, who finds the library I give it to? (I need a name, address, ... with which to deliver the CD(s)). Does someone already have them, or do I have to find them myself? The former is easy - the latter requires work that I wasn't prepared to do. > As for me, I'm doing RH9, TheOpenCD and knoppix. For which library? And how are they being trained? Can you "release" your training materials for others to improve/use? Also, what about the sales pitch you are using? Can you share that? These are things that stymie most sysadmins, users, programmers. Help will be needed for those things - and they will probably be jointly developed. > > But I suspect others might have similar requirements. And most people > > aren't familiar with the tools (hmmm: that could be a meeting topic), > > and if anyone else is like me, their experience tells them that > > coordinating a software engineering effort is harder than herding cats. > I wouldn't even bother doing a sw eng project with the LUG. It's > not the appropriate forum for doing that. SF would be better. OK. I mis-understood the scope of the project. But SF would probably be good for the training materiel and documentation. --Bruce
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
