On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 02:38:41PM -0700, Neil Schneider wrote: > > > 2. If SDCS is going to end up being a Kplug-only show, we may want to > > reassess > > I'm not sure what there is to reassess. I don't even know what the > current active SIGs are. >
Reassess whether it makes sense for us to continue the shell of the SDCS. > > 3. I suspect that SDMUG would be making a tactical error to pull out > > (i.e., that SDCS still provides them with value), but they may have > > wrongs or annoyances that need correcting. > > This may have been the plan all along. They seemed to have been upset > that they were beholden to SDCS and thus the takeover. They still have > to make an accounting to SDCS and turn over all their assets if they > secede. > > > 4. Even if they pull out, kplug shouldn't do anything percipitous. > > I don't think we're likely to do anything preciptious. What were you > forseeing? > We might find ourselves considering how much sense it makes for us to keep SDCS propped up, essentially alone. OTOH, SDMUG might find it was more expensive and inconvenient to go it alone, and might ask to come back under the umbrella, which would be fine. To me, the function of SDCS right now is to provide a cost-effective shell for the sigs, complete with insurance, non-profit status, etc. I have not seen any will or interest in doing more than that. However, that alone can be a valuable reason for the larger organization to exist. Frankly, I'm a little puzzled by SDMUG's apparent belief that things would be better if they were on their own. I hope they can explain their gripes to us. Maybe we could help ameliorate them. Maybe going out on their own is the best thing. It's interesting to me that they're doing this so quickly after essentially gaining unopposed control of SDCS. What's bugging them? -- Lan Barnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux Guy, SCM Specialist 858-354-0616 -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-steer
