On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 10:07:25PM -0700, Andrew Lentvorski wrote: > > On May 4, 2005, at 8:18 PM, Lan Barnes wrote: > > >Fortunately we have Gus who has been working on this and thinking > >about > >it for years. And we have jhriv and Josh and Neil and others who've > >stepped up when it was needed. So this isn't a disaster by any means. > >The talent's in place and the ideas are ready, I'm sure. > > Lan, > > I believe that there is still at least 1 SDCS board seat open. If > that is the case, please put my name up to be appointed/approved/ > whatever for that slot. > > Given all the other KPLUG folks who did this duty, I should shoulder > part of the load as well. > > Thanks, > -a >
Thanks, Andrew. I'm quite sure that there will be an opportunity for you and others to serve on the board, and in this term. And obviously, we need to reach out to the remaining SIGs actively. I think we should also return to the Under The Hood group and see if they'd like to rethink their move out. However, we need to remember the realities of where we are. The officers of SDCS are still the officers of SDMUG. They pledged to remain for a transition period. Nobody has discussed what that transition will be like (we have talked about needing audits of SDCS and SDMUG, but AFAIK that hasn't been discussed by the SDCS board). Actually, I'm not sure this won't get a little sticky before it's over. It's a little incestuous for the majority of the board to be SDMUG people making a break for it. Should they recuse themselves before votes on the audits? Maybe we should ask them to resign and step aside immediately. We need to talk to the other remaining SIGs. John Alvarado has shown that he's paying attention. I wish I'd gotten the email from the man from the PC (MS) group who attended the last board meeting. The board has its regular May meeting on the 25th I believe, and then I'll be away for the June meeting. I suppose I could leave my proxy with someone (have to read those by-laws). Frankly, I see this as an opportunity, provided we're (the big we, here -- all the SIGs) willing to do a little work. SDCS doesn't have to be a big, all-consuming operation. I think most of us share a vision of it being a transparent service organization, little more than a corporate shell to give the SIGs some combined buying power on insurance and such like. If in the course of that we can foster more of a sense of community without imposing unnecessary structure, all the better. So keeping in mind the old adage, first things first, I'm open to a discussion of best next steps. -- Lan Barnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux Guy, SCM Specialist 858-354-0616 -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-steer
