On 9/26/07, Ted Roche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> We still have no agreed-upon definition for "member" or "join". > > Agreed. And those discussions have been beaten to death and remain > indefinite. I don't consider this a bad thing. I have learned to live > with ambiguity.
Fair enough, except I'm starting to suspect that the reason the "What more can we do?" discussion continually makes slow progress is that it doesn't have a destination in mind. I think a mistake we each make is that we all assume everyone else knows where each of us personally envisions the destination. Hence the cat herd problem. The engineer in me sees that as woefully inefficient. It still might be the best way (like democracy -- woefully inefficient, but beats the alternatives), but I'm not sure. Where I work, someone uses the phrase "Proceed with all possible speed; direction to be determined later" to characterize this problem. I'm not looking to divine the ultimate answer to this question in this thread, but I think it's something that needs answering. > Also agreed. Perhaps I need to focus the question more succinctly. I > would like to raise the number of people who *attend* the meetings we > are giving. Ahh! Much better. Defining the problem is often the hardest part, conceptually. But this raises another issue: Do you want to raise attendance of the meetings we are giving, or do you want to make the meetings we are giving something more people will attend? I realize we can and probabbly should do both, but I think it's important to highlight that they are separate tasks. The former is a question of "advertising" -- spreading the word to parties we think would be interested. The later is a question of "market research" -- finding out what people are more interested in. -- Ben _______________________________________________ gnhlug-org mailing list gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org/
