I don't wish to get offside with anyone over this, but I tend to agree with Chris, although last night had slightly different aims to our normal meetings.
It was important to have John's intervention last night because a discussion on structure itself needs to be structured. In the end we got it right: 1. decided what we wanted the group to do (Seminars, Workshops, Installfests, Electronic Info and (as an ancillary aim) the promotion of linux in the community) 2. decided how much of that we wanted or needed a committee to co-ordinate (seminars & workshops) 3. decided on the makeup of the committee. Thanks John for your input on controlling the meeting. We'd still be there now otherwise. Of course our normal meetings don't have a lot of structure because its usually a talk, or a workshop, and there are no formal motions or decisions needed. Last night's meeting was different and needed structure, and John stepped into the breach when needed. At least in part our meetings grew out of a desire to put faces to names and to talk to real people rather than keyboards and mailing lists. The "organisation" need not be seen as anything other than a collection of enthusiasts helping each other and meeting together to both acheive that end, and for social reasons. IMHO it IS a strong, dynamic and effective organisation, probably because we are enthusiasts. Well 2 cents gets you quite a few lines of email these days doesn't it. On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 11:47:11 +1300 Christopher Sawtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > John: Don't forget NZ is a free country, therefore you - to use the Open or > Free Source parlance - have every right to exercise the "fork option". > Speaking entirely for myself, I find that the delightfully chaotic, gregarious > and free interchange of ideas and fellowship with similarly minded people is > what makes the evening. -- Nick Rout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
