For the record:- We have a motion to the AGM from Rob Fisher, and seconded by me which reads:-
"That the loose grouping of people known as the Canterbury Linux Users Group remain as such with no rules other than sharing a common interest in using, supporting and encouraging Linux and Open Source software and further, that all decisions be made based on any apparent shared but not necessarily unanimous reasoning." My interpretation of that is that it means that the CLUG stays _exactly_ as it is now. I find that situation both pleasant and one which fills my needs. Rik: If you have the need to set up another Linux Group of a different nature and different name, please feel free to go and do it. That is after all your right in this, the larger, national, open and democratic society which is NZ, but do not hi-jack either the name of this one "Canterbury Linux Users' Group" or the existing email lists, or expect to be able co-opt the membership for your own commercial purposes. You will need a different mail list in order to do what you want. Set up as many as you need, yourself, or if you cannot do that, commission somebody else to do it for you. There are many people on the CLUG lists, myself included, who really do not want to see our friendly little club being changed into some sort of "Advocacy and Sales Organisation" of any kind whatsoever. The notion of changing CLUG into some sort of Ra-Ra sales support organisation such as the Amways of the world etc. just gives me the complete shudders and I will, without any doubt whatsoever, vote with my feet. On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:20, Rik Tindall wrote: > [Off-(main)-List] > > ..hopefully the start of significant expansion of committee list's utility. Does the owner of the machine which hosts the clug-c list agree to the increased traffic and change of use? > Nick Rout wrote: > >> <snip> > > > >I know of no better advocates than the people on this list, and many of > >them advocate each and every day in their chioces of software, their > >discussions with others, the recommendations they make to colleagues. > >participation in installfests (and the surrounding publicity), by giving > >the message to retailers that they won't buy bundled windows software, > >by explaining those choices to retailers, by telling their boss that > >they do not need to spend money on windows to producxe a file/email/web > >server and so on and so on. > > Agreed. No problem there. I wish to address the question of expanding > these range of activities, particularly in public interfacing beyond the > annual Installfest. No disparagement of individual dedication to the > cause was intended. It is our collective work that has 'room for > improvement', on the _public_ advocacy & support level, imho. All that I > can do to help this along, I will do. Certainly undermining anyone's > effort is counterproductive. We reach common conclusion as to the open > avenue over other courses to pursue. > > >OTOH some do not have the time or inclination to be involved at any more > >than a technical level. > > Which is not a problem. I propose we move the LUG up a notch in > organisational method, to satisfy our "some". That is, throw open _this_ > list to voluntary membership, and direct all "OT" threads over here. The > balancing out will get more done across the board. > > >If you want more effective advocacy and support then get out there and > >advocate and support, and if you need a group to hold your hand then > >form a group (although there are plenty of people in this group who > >would also like to see and be part of more advocacy). And if that > >advocacy increases your turnover, or mine, or anyone elses then thats > >great too. > > It seems to me too that separate groupings for separate tasks is > inevitable. This need not be debate-arousing, but in that is, we should > also explore expanding the LUG as an integral whole. The latter is the > strongest feeling I have seen. > > >What I am missing is the answers to the following: > > > >(1) why you seem to need to denigrate others and criticise those who do > >not share each and every one of your aims and ideals. Take a chill pill > >Rik > > These matters should not be taken personally. See the Official RFC which defines the correct behaviour while using the online medium:- http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt Rik: Please ensure you read, understand, and follow the instructions therein when you post on the lists used by CLUG members. > 'Politics' is the > interplay between countervailing or related positions. Persons merely > articulate these positions. Through time, people change. It is > the articulated positions which echo through history. Individualisation > of thought is a very superficial comprehension of events. Two points here. The membership has made it pretty clear that it does not want to play politics, nor tolerate ill-mannered postings. > That said, in that there is truth in your 'attack', the explanation > would lie in my own insecurities. These are my responsibility to repair, > and not the group's. Thanks for the reminder. > > >(2) what you propose that a group (no matter who makes it up) should be > >doing (and do not say "support and advocacy" - give concrete real world > >examples please). > > You edited out the key word: "public". Our fundamentals are wrong on > this. Namely, it is substandard to drop public drop-in opportunity > meetings for any month of the year (except Xmas & New Year), imho. But > worse, to allow those meetings we do hold to go unposted on our _public_ > website, defies all logic. I could go on from there & start opining > about new tacks, hooks or activities that we might employ in > month-to-month work as Linux advocates, but I'll save that for another > paragraph. Nuff said. _Profile._ > > >>I think your statements have most to do with your own fear/s, and you > >> need to address them. > > In this case, please "ignore" me everyone, and my apologies go to Carl. > OT. :-/ You are within a gnats arse of going into my kill-file or procmail recipe. > One final question regarding the 'need for change': Why is it that the > above thread-response must be treated "Off-Topic", when it only concerns > the "Canterbury Linux Users' Group", to which it is addressed?.. Simply because it is not a Linux technical matter. > I believe the record shows it is actually because we have a "* * Users > List" so far. Whether anyone else wants to help start us along the > difficult course of choosing between renaming "CLUG" to something more > accurate, or expanding it to better reflect the range of Users the name > implies (including private enterprise), is up to them. As I have explained to you already in a private email, I'm certain that the good grace of The University of Canterbury does not extend to hosting an email list for the commercial and private enterprise of anybody. > I shall not be > pushing it. This question is secondary to charting a course of actually > doing more in terms of _public_ GNU/Linux support. If you start pushing people where the do not want to go they will, without doubt, go in the opposite direction. > We, an elite minority, know the OS is worth all such contributory effort. -- Sincerely etc., Christopher Sawtell
