On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 23:26, John S Veitch wrote: > Hello All > > My vision for the Canterbury Linux Users Group was very soundly > defeated last night. There was little aspiration among those in > attendance to make the group into a strong dynamic and effective > organisation.
I disagree though what I probably disagree with is the definition of: "strong dynamic and effective" I think we have been very effective in what *we want* to do. > It's a "users group" it's for us, the users. If > people want to join fine, join the list, become a user. We don't > need a structure, a committee, elections or rules. We're just a list > and our method is "to volunteer". If there are volunteers things > happen and if nobody bothers then nothing happens. Creative anarchy. > which IMO is exactly as it should be as if nobody *wants* to do it then it *shouldn't* be done. This is a *voluntary* organisation. That means it exists because our members intend to have fun or believe it's a good thing. For me a large part of why I go to the meetings is for a chin wag *not* to make motions to amend motions! > > STOP. Think. Remember the first ideas you had about computer > programming. You tried to write a big long thing called "programme" > and you had a few bits that didn't fit so they became "another > programme 1" and "another programme 2". > > I expect you all know enough to know that this approach to writing > software is disastrous. STRUCTURE is critical. In the next year I'd > like to see us all thing a lot about the best structure for our > group. Your metaphor is not sound. Human beings are not Turing machines. > The committee elected last night need to experiment with > structure a little bit and report back to us about "what works" we > need leadership. Why do we need leadership? > > Here's what we did last night. (As a programme) > > Main Programme: > > Part 1 Organise the meeting > Part 2 Organise the meeting > Part 3 Organise the meeting > Part 4 Organise the meeting > Part 5 Organise the meeting We had a admittedly meandering discussion about what we wanted to do a CLUG meetings. What was wrong with that? As I said before, a large part of why we go to these meetings is for a chin-wag with like minded Linux users. Who cares if we don't achieve...what? > > End of main Programme > > New Programme: Look after the money > > New Programme: Publicity for the Install Fest. > > New Programme: Supper and meeting setup. > > New Programme: The CLUG website and email archives. > You got the order wrong > It's untidy guys. It won't get better if we avoid thinking about it. > You know what happens to a programme that's convoluted and confused, > it becomes useless and impossible to maintain. We can do better. What's to maintain? What use are you speaking of? > Regards > John > > John S. Veitch > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Photo Available on WWW > http://www.ate.co.nz/johnsveitch.jpg > > Adapt to Experience I agree, you should ;-) With all of that said, I thank you for speeding up the voting process. However voting on amending the blasted motion I did find irritating :-P -- Zane Gilmore, Analyst / Programmer Information Services Section, Information Technology Dept, University of Canterbury - Te Whare Waananga o Waitaha Private Bag 4800, Christchurch New Zealand Phone +64-3-364 2987 extn 7895
