Hi Bart,
Bart Hanson wrote:
On 18/10/2004, at 8:31 PM, Gareth Williams wrote:
As far as a change in structure goes, "if it ain't broken, don't fix it".
Perhaps we could have a quick show of hands - who besides Rik thinks anything
is broken at the moment? "CLUG" seems to be fine to me
As last years President of the Apple Users group of Canterbury Inc. I have experienced a lot committee talkfests.
Is that an annual reshuffle? If not, a little more description of your committee differences & goals might help us here.
Some always want to formalise these things for whatever reason. Others love the politics more than the cause.
Neither of these hold any sway whatsoever on this list - no doubt that's an attractive difference to many other user groups.
As a "guest" on your stimulating list (I do not know any of the personalities involved except Jim.C) I would advise you to resist the move to a more formal structure EXCEPT where there is a demonstrated need to do so or a guaranteed longer term benefit that meets with unanimous approval.
Interesting that this bogey attracts fire even when it isn't there, and from outside. Your contribution does show that a case awaits making that this is actually a Canterbury * Users Group mailing list - where * is as ill-defined as "Users Group" is related to percentages (of OS use).
This may or may not have any importance at some point in the future - "it just works" :-) And we like it.
A "complete" outsiders advice,
Bart Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks, Rik
