On 3/1/06, dipankar das <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wednesday 01 March 2006 21:20, GOSSAMER PENGUIN wrote: > > without malice to anyone , ilug-cal is very much a "fledgling > > group" existing mianly > > now in this list . > > It will be very nice and good point to make it full of action, a very good > thing to do. But, i share Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay's point: what is the harm > in making our good old ilug-cal as good as we should want our lug to be, but > what is the point in forking it into something like lug-bengal or something > like that?
dipankarda, I think most people agree on the point that ilug-cal needs to have more activity. And there has been no discussion of a fork (only registration) until that concern was introduced by Sankarshan - no doubt he had this concern based on past experiences. As far as my opinions go, I do see a lot of merit in registration, but by no means is that an end in itself. If the LUG is active by other benchmarks - meetings with Linux related discussions, people finding Linux help when they need it, being able to take each other's help working on OSS projects, enough volunteers for LUG tasks and for spreading the word about Linux...etc. I think that is good enough achievement for the LUG. I believe that a fork will mean that the new group loses whatever ilug-cal (in its present form) has succeeded in building up. Plus it violates that time honoured dictum "Do not multiply entities unnecessarily". :-) Prashant Verma -- To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body "unsubscribe ilug-cal" and an empty subject line. FAQ: http://www.ilug-cal.org/node.php?id=3
