[aclug-L] Re: ACLUG

[Michael Moore <mrmoore@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Michael Moore wrote:

>Tom Hull wrote:
>
>>Don't really have time to go another round on this, but I do want to get
>>a couple more things out. The main one is that I had been thinking of
>>meetings as presentations/lectures, which is of course not the only way
>>to think of them. I think it was Bruce Alderman who suggested that they
>>should really be meetings, which involve a lot more give-and-take among
>>participants, rather than presenter-giving/audience-taking. The fact is,
>>there are lots of different kinds of get-togethers, each with its own
>>set of goals, expectations, requirements, etc., but the real important
>>thing is to recognize which one you're trying to do, and do a better job
>>of it than we've been seeing.
>>
>>Just to spell this out a bit, presentations in order to be successful
>>have to be good, which is hard to do, so one thing that implies is to
>>do them less frequently (I suggested monthly, which actually seems to
>>be the norm for LUGs AFAIK). Meetings are not so hard, and probably
>>benefit from greater frequency (up to a point). On the other hand, one
>>thing you need with a meeting is someone who can keep the ball rolling.
>>Also, meetings with more than about six people tend to dehomogenize --
>>separate into active and passive people, and you need someone who can
>>stir that up every now and then.
>>
>>Another thing I was thinking of (without really getting into it) was
>>bringing in guest lecturers. That might be a separate effort, and
>>might be something WSU affiliation could fund.
>>
>>Dale W Hodge wrote:
>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: discussion-bounce@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:discussion-bounce@xxxxxxxxx]On
>>>>Behalf Of Tom Hull
>>>>
>>>>Better to adjust the format so you don't need to find another Goerzen,
>>>>than just hang onto a format that isn't working.
>>>>
>>>But what would that format look like?
>>>
>>Could be no Q&A period. Could require Q to be submitted ahead of time,
>>so someone could have Q already parsed and A in hand.
>>
>>>We've also talked about having a new user group and an advanced group. But 
>>>we've
>>>always felt there wasn't enough 'help' to go around.
>>>
>>I've never liked this idea. For one thing, new users need experts to guide
>>them; for another, nobody's an expert in everything.
>>
>>Also, I'm more concerned about attracting relative experts than newbies,
>>because they raise the quality and value of the whole group.
>>
I think I might have read more into your statement than you intended, My 
Bag.  Its just I believe there should be a good balance between newbies, 
intermediates and experts.  From what I have read on this discussion 
list there seems to be a lot of newbies and intermediates (as well, 
maybe some experts?) that haven't felt welcomed.  Thats all.

By the way, Wednesday's meeting was the first one I went to and I felt 
welcomed.  Thanks.

Maybe how to attract experts to the group can be discussed in future 
non-Presentational meeting.

>>
>Okay, Tom, that one hurt . ;-)   Let's take a look at this one for a 
>moment.  There is aways a some degree of selfishness in all belonging to 
>any group.  We all belong to share information and in the process we 
>learn.  I understand you would like to see relative experts becuase you 
>could immediately gain from their knowledge.  But, what would attract 
>experts to a group if they didn't have much to gain.  In the same 
>respect a newbie shouldn't bug the heck out of the experts in order to 
>gain knowledge.  The newbie can gain knowledge by just participating in 
>the group functions...(and lot of reading).  But, the newbie also needs 
>to feel welcomed.
>
>I could understand attracting experts if you only had a discussion list. 
> But, in running a local group such as this then there is a definite 
>need to have a balance of newbie users, intermediate users and expert users.
>
>It's like in a business, if all you had were experts than not much would 
>get done.  Do you think the experts would want the do the mondain tasks 
>that the new hires does?
>Those type of beginners task would bore the expert, plus the business 
>wouldn't be utilizing the experts skills.
>
>In a business the experts spend the majority of their time solving the 
>complicated tasks.  The intermediate spends a small part of their time 
>on complex tasks, a large part of their time on intermediate tasks and a 
>small part of their time on simple tasks.  The Beginner spends the major 
>of their time on simple tasks that usually the intermediate gave them to 
>do.  
>
>Beginner - these simple tasks are things that have to be done for the 
>business to be successfull and are things that the intermediate and 
>expert don't have time to do.  If the Begineer whats to learn and pays 
>attention they can learn a lot without being a nuciance to the 
>Intermediate or the Expert.
>
>There needs to be a balance of all three skill levels participating.  If 
>you completely lose participation of one of the skill levels then you 
>start to run into problems.
>
>Which is what I expect is happen to this group.  It looks like only a 
>few people from one skill level is having to do the majority of the 
>work.  And I can certainly understand how frustrating that can be.
>
>Look at it another way, the more people you attract to the group and the 
>more attactive participates you have then less each person would have to 
>do to maintain a level result.
>
>
>Instead of thinking how a newbie would hender the group, try and think 
>of how a newbie could help the group.  Almost everybody has some 
>perticular skills that could an be utilized to benefit the group.
>
>Granted a newbie, as in anything, can be a pain for awhile.  There is 
>always that learning curve.
>
>~Mike -)
>
>>>>>would favor 1 topic meeting and 1 "social" meeting.
>>>>>
>>>>I don't know what you mean by a "social" meeting. There could be
>>>>different types of meetings/events, especially if one need not get
>>>>involved in all of them.
>>>>
>>>By social meeting, I mean something like our "pizza parties".  Where a group 
>>>of
>>>us get together and talk over whatever.
>>>
>>I've been to a couple of "pizza parties" -- I think they might work
>>better if they could break up into smaller groups, maybe have theme
>>tables and let people wander where they want. I don't think this is
>>easy at a commercial restaurant, but pizza transports well.
>>
>>>Most presentations only run an hour anyway. We could do announcements last, 
>>>but
>>>then no one would stay to hear them. :-)
>>>
>>Announcements should be at the beginning, but they need to be worked
>>ahead of time and kept short and sweet. If you need to thrash them
>>out democratically, do that on-line, ahead of time (or schedule a
>>"town hall meeting").
>>
>>>>Maybe different mailers handle this differently, but if I want to
>>>>reply to a post privately (which I sometimes do), setting reply-to
>>>>to the list means I have to retype the sender's address. Doing it
>>>>the other way around means all I have to do is choose between my
>>>>"Reply" and "Reply All" buttons (then delete the sender, but that's
>>>>easier than typing the sender in).
>>>>
>>>Yeah, but I would bet that most people would just hit the reply button and 
>>>we'd
>>>never see the information on the list.
>>>
>>Then (if it matters) they'll have to resend; eventually they'll learn.
>>
>>>>If you don't do this, as the list grows we all get swamped with
>>>>useless replies, and/or people don't bother to respond for fear
>>>>of burdening the list (which you receive back, and gets logged)
>>>>where an easy private reply would be done. Trying to force all
>>>>replies back to the list is wasteful and/or a nuisance. Almost
>>>>all of the mail lists that I subscribe to work that way. This
>>>>leaves it up to the individual to decide whether any give post
>>>>is of interest to the list, which is the way it should be.
>>>>
>>>I've seen it done both ways, and I don't have a problem with either. In many
>>>ways I prefer it this way. Otherwise a lot of discussions would likely end up
>>>off list.
>>>
>>You want the low-grade, non-general-interest discussions off list.
>>
>
>
>
>-- This is the discussion@xxxxxxxxx list.  To unsubscribe,
>visit http://tmp2.complete.org/cgi-bin/listargate-aclug.cgi
>
>



-- This is the discussion@xxxxxxxxx list.  To unsubscribe,
visit http://tmp2.complete.org/cgi-bin/listargate-aclug.cgi