I have been giving all this a bit of thought. There is nothing to stop any group of like minded people forming a Trust, or an Incorporated Society. It may or may not be called the Canterbury/Christchurch Linux Users Group Incorporated, but one would hope a new idea had a new name, so as to avoid confucion with the froup of people who subscribe to this list, a subset of whom occasionally meet for various technical and social purposes.
There must be a point to it, otherwise it will fall over as quick as look at you. The points I can take from the few people who have posted is: Technical meetings, be they installfests, "fixits", talks etc are liked by many people, some people learn better face to face or in a lecture scenario. Some people, especially newbies who are so new they don't know their root from their / don't know where to start describing their problem, some people just like the mixed social/technical aspect of getting in the same room with a bunch of geeks and their hardware. Which brings us to the second general consensus (as I see it), namely that the social aspects are welcomed. OK some cannot afford dinner, some cannot get into a pub, but there can be events for everyone on the "social calendar" Neither of those aims require any further structure. They are well catered for already. The third thing I see being called for is involvement in promoting linux in a wider context, eg Trevor's post (and he wasn't the only one). Some have pointed out that there is a bit of community money out there that could be applied for etc. There have been suggestions of an "expo" type of show, ie show off to the public what linux can do - no installs, just a bunch of demos and maybe talks. Theres also room for more targetted promotions - eg school teachers - produce a reference LTSP site and give guided tours to school principals/BOT's. This type of thing takes money to do properly. An expo would almost require a fulltime worker for a period of time. It requires promotion, advertising, budgets etc. It would basically, IMHO, require a more formal structure to give some accountability etc. personally I would have to limit my involvement in something like that as I have a completely unrelated business to run, but i'd still like to have some involvement. This talk of money and promotion to actual buyers (as opposed to fiddlers with their own boxes to run) begs the question of where are the commercial linux people in all of this? We all know that there are several businesses in ChCh producing Open Source software. You don't see a lot of them on this list any more, perhaps they are lurking. But if there are schools and businesses to sell hardware, software and services to, the commercial guys should be there putting money in and promoting their services. Another way of looking at it is, picture an expo with a great LTSP demo. Teachers are impressed. "Where can we get one?" - there is no point in saying www.ltsp.org. You need to be able to refer to people on the ground. Anyway its late. My point is that most of the desires expressed are catered for at present, but that heavy duty promotion requires a lot of time money and effort. Thats not to say it shouldn't be done, we just need to think carefully about it before this group, or some offshoot or subset of it, goes down that line in a big way. I hope I get some reactions, and the discussion continues. On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 22:16:41+1300 Gareth Williams<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My $0.02 - > > As things currently stand we have a committee who primarily look after > the small amount of money "CLUG"* has aquired, and the avenues through > which that money is spent / aquired (read: meetings, workshops, > installfests). This a valuable role (espeically as far as money is > concerned, heh). And helpers need rounding up for installfests, > speakers need rounding up for meetings, etc etc. > > But the group is really the mailing list. This is where people come > for help, this is where decisions are usually made, this is where most > discussions happen. Any off list activities are really just a > semi-organised gathering of like minded people, who organised > something and invited people via a common mailing list. With the > exception of the funds (which the committee looks after), that's all > there is really. And that's all we need. > > Why do we need a formal group (aka committee) organising things like > official dinners / dinner meetings? If people on the list want to meet > others and eat food, they don't need any kind of structure to do so. > Someone (let's say Nick, for example ;-) decides they want to organise > a small get together at a local restraunt, and posts an open > invitation to all list members. Those who wish to join the fun do so, > those who can't make it (like me, regrettably), or who can't afford it > (me also, heh ;-) don't. > > Now, somebody tell me what is wrong with that system. > > It works. - worked (and from the sounds of it everyone had a good time > :-) > > I would like to see the committee stick to their current role of > organising meetings and installfests. Input from people on list as to > the content of these (do we need more speakers? more workshops? etc) > is of course a good thing. But anything additional that can be left on > an ad-hoc basis (such as dinners) should be IMHO. > > Basically - if you want an activity, organise it yourself, and post an > invitation to others on the mailing list.** > > I don't think we need an AGM, unless any of those on the committee > feel they wish to step down, in which case we will need to elect > replacements (but even that can be done on-list). Things are running > pretty well by themselves. > > In any case, I move a pre-emptive motion that nobody move any motions, > counter-motions, motions to append motions, or any other such > silliness, should an AGM be held this year :-) :-) > > > Sorry for the long post. > > Cheers, > Gareth > > * there is no CLUG ;-) > > ** this goes for forming random community trusts and the like too ;-) > >
