Tracy R Reed wrote: > Bob La Quey wrote: >> I completely disagree. This is where the "who" are. If you do not >> get that then you do not get it. The "who" are not thinking about >> Linux or Mac or Windows. The new audience has been on the net since >> childhood and is only interested in where upon the net to be. > > And they each paid nearly $100 for the OS running on their computer not > to mention various other software, have unreliable computers, and are > likely to have spyware etc. I am running into more and more people who > lost 5 years worth of email (Trinity, for example) because someone > installed spyware on her computer and stole her yahoo account. I know > someone else who lost a bunch of irreplaceable vacation pics because > they thought flickr was a good place to store them. These "web 2.0" > people still need a lot of help. > >> SDCS has become irrelevant because it is irrelevant. What >> resources does SDCS have to offer the "larger community?" > > I suspect SDCS has become irrelevant also. Perhaps it should just be > left to die. I'm just wondering how that will affect our ability to have > our monthly meetings which I do still enjoy.
Maybe. I think the purpose of the thread is to explore that issue. My own thought is that SDCS needs to rethink it's mission statement. Well, BLQ has the disadvantage of participating in a discussion thread that failed to recap the stimulus for the discussion. At the last KPLUG, meeting, some time was given over to discussing upcoming SDCS elections and some questions about the future of SDCS. In brief (someone *please* correct if I have this wrong) SDCS functions almost totally as an umbrella for its sigs, providing: non-profit status liability insurance meeting rooms at SDCOE (What else?) bank accounts, maybe This situation has existed for some years, now (maybe 10 or more?). [my observation:] SDCS has even lost sigs. Recent secessions have included a Mac user group (name?), and a hardware group (UCHUG). The organization also suffers the mild embarrassment of having money in the bank. Some $17K or so (as I recall). It was stated that non-profits are not generally expected to accumulate (or perhaps even sit on) funds. One of the concerns expressed was that some people and/or groups would like for SDCS to reduce its membership fees -- even (or, perhaps, *in order to*) run a deficit. It was observed that the current bankroll would pay out benefits stated above for quite a few years (maybe 10-15?) Josh expressed the opinion that giving current beneficiaries such a free ride seemed equally inappropriate for a non-profit as accumulating funds. [Apologize for paraphrasing, here -- Josh, we could use your campaign statements! :-) ]. The suggestion was made that SDCS might try becoming more active in some kind of projects contributing value to the general community -- whatever that is (no connotations here, just commenting on a TBD item). Josh gave the pitch that he would be willing to run for the SDCS president position and try to stimulate some activism. He pointed out the need (perhaps among other needs) for project ideas. The need for project ideas was the seed for this thread. ==> Personal note: I have reservations whether discussions of SDCS on the KPLUG list is the best we can do -- we *need* a larger forum, or it can easily appear that KPLUG is trying to railroad SDCS. I don't believe that to be anyone's purpose, but I do see a crucial need to enlarge the participation beyond members of this list. Regards, ..jim (post a manifesto on the cathedral door?) -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
