Hi Carl,
Carl Cerecke wrote:
Bart Hanson wrote:
As last years President of the Apple Users group of Canterbury Inc. I have experienced a lot committee talkfests.
Some always want to formalise these things for whatever reason. Others love the politics more than the cause.
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.
A "complete" outsiders advice,
Thanks, Bart. That's a very insightful contribution. I don't have a problem with the informal nature of CLUG. And, let's face it, geeks tend to resist unnecessary formalisation anyway (for better or for worse). I think formalising might push more away than if we remain much as we are.
I've no problem with that either.
Perhaps Rik's
historical lobbying for GNU recognition
push for the CLUG to be something else (I'm really not sure what, exactly)
- then don't just repeat other people's meanderings -
is caused by his conflict of interest (he makes money supporting Linux).
A worthy analysis, but based on a false accusation.
..What, and you aren't making money from Linux skills? And I thought you were the best programmer we had.
Many readers will know of my favour for Free Software ideas. These in no way preclude earning, which aligns - rather then opposes - Free Software to the 'non-Free' / otherwise-defined Open Source camp. If anything, Open Source is where most of the $ is at these days!
Now none would decry innovation(?) If alerting people to arguably the key innovation for 21st Century computing (the GNU GPL) turns a buck, well - that just confirms the innovation.
hth
Cheers,
Carl.
Regards, Rik
