Re: [clug-c] Re: 1st CLUG AGM

[Rik Tindall]

<serious-frown>
Defamy does not stand. We can clear up this mess quickly.
Definition: misinformation + intent = disinformation.
Christopher Sawtell wrote:
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.
Which is why it changed.
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.

Opening up Linux education in Canterbury has begun with easing the grip 
of the (unwitting) Gentoo/KDE hijack of CLUG's "levers of control" (that 
do not exist :-) since first GM. That process began as a struggle to 
have other, more user-friendly (less off-putting) distributions than 
Mandrake assessed for LUG promotions. Improvement was found in SuSE 9, 
almost in time for Installfest gains (SuSE is KDE default too). More 
choice & flexibility is rapidly emerging now, in the distributions 
promoted by our LUG. Repeat: this process is one of de-'hijacking' the LUG.

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.

Noone should need to, with an inclusive *LUG.
As argued below, most seem to want to be "expanding the LUG as an 
integral whole."

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?

All thanks to Nick & AGM for making this organisational refinement a 
highly practical reality.

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.

I shall, thanks. And while we're swapping links, take a look at:
http://www.albion.com/netiquette/corerules.html
with particular note of points 4, 5, 7, 9 & 10.
</serious-frown>
'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.

<cooperative-mode>
Which is why this thread was OT/committee, and should have been kept so. 
Please be so good as to direct any replies back to there.

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.
Ah.., so we have agreement. Good.
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.

You are right - "excluding private enterprise" as correction. Whatever 
keeps us involved with Linux, as Users we leave it at the door of our 
LUG forums. So here we all have equal standing, sharing knowledge & 
expertise, for the general good of all. Point taken.

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.

A second law of gravity, perhaps.
Newtonian physics?: 'For each and every action, there is an equal and 
opposite reaction.'

We, an elite minority, know the OS is worth all such contributory effort.
For the purpose of resolving the historical difference underlying this 
post - for the good of our LUG - and as part of understanding the 
history of Linux in Canterbury, I digress. Please bear with me. Chris is 
invited to contradict me on this story, but please take it back to 
committee list (Beer & Admin :-). Moving us past our differences - for 
constructive joint work in the LUG - is the sole objective here.

Chris is at loggerheads with me for some time now. The problem began at 
a local institute - which shall remain nameless, and as blameless as his 
own good self. The problem is one of Linux education, where is was 
impossible to fill a classroom with students of equal levels of 
experience on Linux. A minority - myself included - had signed on for an 
ABC, start-at-start, standard type of tuition, knowing nothing at all of 
Linux except its reputation. The majority, however, had the 6-months+ 
experience required of Linux+ candidates, as per the qualification's 
off-shore definition, to which the institute was guiding us. So Chris 
was placed in the invidious position of having to choose which student 
group to target his teaching at. As was correct - democratically, & by 
the external course definition - Chris catered for the advanced 
students, and the beginners got left behind. But beginners' course 
material had been provided by the institute, and this was not taught 
directly.

A fellow-beginner (a Kai Tahu staffer) & I complained to management and 
were provided with replacement course places. We've both gone on to gain 
our Linux+. Now this - I hope you agree - was the right thing to do (as 
consumers & provider - honour was maintained).

Where the above post drift comes from, I believe - and where we need to 
end it for the good of our LUG - is that Chris's perception of me (in 
the role of student newbie advocate) has held negatively to this day. We 
need to step back & see that there is more to people than any short-term 
role they play, and that 'newbie advocacy' will remain a valid role 
within our LUG. There is room for everyone here.

Regards,
& that's it from me here, in the main. Thanks for your time.
Rik
...</cooperative-mode>