Bill Kendrick wrote: > Is the giant LUG list over at Linux Online (linux.org) not sufficient? > (One nice thing about it, is that it seems to automatically ping groups > every year, to make sure information is kept up-to-date. Though, of course, > I'm not sure how may LUGs _do_ keep their stuff up-to-date there.) > It's a perfect example of the difficulty of the problem. Cerritos LUG, which would have been the perfect one for me location-wise, has been dead for years--yet is still there. Even keeping things up to date is an unknown (although it appears a registered account would be sufficient to submit change requests). It might be a good idea for LoCo members who have the time to look into those groups to create an account and see if any of those listings need updated.
I think it's pretty clear that an up-to-date listing is very non-trivial, and I certainly don't want the LoCo to have Yet Another Unreliable List. Not outside of the scope of coordinating our own efforts to reach out, at least. I believe that any list on the Ubuntu California wiki should be a working document used to keep track of who's monitoring which groups. -- Nathan Haines Ubuntu California Local Community Team -- Ubuntu-us-ca mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-us-ca
