Rik Tindall wrote: > <snip> > Thus, since our tradition is so strong on genetic divergence, and > survival of the fittest (thru fork & contest), can we now consider this: > > The club built off the "University of Canterbury Linux Users" list > requires its own, fully appropriate, name. The "CLU" group is wider > than the initiator, including more diverse O/S community, so owes both > a step closer to integrity, by renaming now to either: > > a) Canterbury GNU/Linux Users Group; or > > b) Canterbury Unix Users Group. > > Because we've already heard the copious angst over 'a' (merit-worthy > or otherwise), and given the 10/4/7 evidence, it seems we must opt > (and so I move) for 'b' - CUUG. > > Do we have a seconder please? > > </snip> ok i'll bite first... i certainly will NOT second this, the proposal has no support from me at all, this type of hair splitting is a waste of our time, the current name is at least a 95% fit with the membership, primary purpose and practical function of the list. non-broken name, nil requirement to fix.
Cheers, Roger
