There's a bunch of 'big picture' reasons why I think a formal structure is needed in chch...
Like Nick I can see all sides of the issue... biggest thing for everyone really seems to be the time and effort it would take to manage something bigger than a list. Managing something more requires money because it's unfair for the orginisers to end up doing heaps of work for nothing other than a pat on the back. Personally I've got a few projects on the back burner that could benefit from having a more formal structure and I can see a number of other entities that would also benefit from this. Community groups are always there to help different parts of the community in different ways. I'm happy to help push a formal aspect of the group along with interested parties when the projects I'm working on move from back burner to something closer to boiling point. HTH :) Cheers Don > -----Original Message----- > From: Gareth Williams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 1:40 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: CLUG meetings: A future or not > > > On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 08:48, Fisher, Robert (FXNZ CHC) wrote: > > Well done Nick. (That was just what I was going to say) > > > > Rob > > > Well done Nick, that was just what I was _trying_ to say, > hehe! Especially the > first paragraph. > > Heartily agree with all of it :-) > > Cheers, > Gareth > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Nick Rout [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Sunday, 8 February 2004 11:15 p.m. > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: CLUG meetings: A future or not > > > > 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 ;-) >
