[aclug-L] Re: A Modest Proposal

[Wayne White <WWHITE1@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 04:56 PM 2/8/2002 -0600, you wrote:

>During the meeting Wed. last, it was mentioned that there had been complaints
>from some readers about the volume of mail pertaining to issues only of
>interest to members of ACLUG.  These were people who are not able to come to
>the meetings, and this information was not of interest to them.  I assume they
>were checking the ACLUG site because they were curious about Linux, or because
>they considered the site a Linux resource.  I feel that being a "Linux
>Resource" should be an important part of our contribution to the continued
>growth of Linux.
>
>Because of the above, discussion centered on the idea of a separate list for
>active, attending members.  Then came the appeals from people not able to
>attend meetings, but who wished to be part of  our group, and were able to do
>this vicariously thru the list.  People from ElDorado, KC, Bremen, Hesston
>come immediately to mind.  My apologies to others whom I did not remember.

I probably failed to clearly state my situation. It is a real effort to get 
to the
meetings. I am the one in El Dorado. I used to come pretty frequently. I
haven't so much lately because the return on the effort involved hasn't been
sufficient to warrant that effort. I would love it if the meetings were to
become a greater resource than the last one I attended. I'd be there a lot
more then.

The one thing I would like to avoid is not being able to contribute to the
process of improvement. Even if it is only via input on the lists. I have a
self interest in seeing thing improve with the meetings.


>One thing legitimizing this exclusive list has been voting.  And it seems
>right that those at the actual meetings should be the ones to vote on things
>that affect them and the group.  So I would propose the following:
>
>--Keep the LINUX and LINUX HELP lists readable by anyone in the world who
>wants to use this resource.
>
>--Have a LOCAL GROUP list that is open to anyone, anywhere, who is interested
>in what we are doing.  People would have to sign up for this - understanding
>that this list is for everyone who wishes us well, and this list would be used
>to DISCUSS things pertaining to local meetings.

James, this is what I was hoping to see develop myself. By allowing those of
us who could/would come to meetings, if only occasionally, to remain 
engaged in
the process, it will increase the likelihood of our attending. It would 
also allow for
the possibility of greater involvement for we irregulars. I would also 
think that
it would make it possible to tailor meetings to meet the needs of the greatest
number of participants. This should be the list for all who attend, might 
attend,
or wish to offer constructive suggestions on meetings/local topics to conduct
the interaction pertaining to those areas.


>--A VOTE list.  This would be exclusive, limited to members of ACLUG.

I still think this a bad idea. I would think that a group such as ACLUG should
do its voting on issues at a meeting, not on a private list. I believe that 
is the way
it has been done in the past. I would also argue that it would be 
beneficial for
voting members to be able to receive input from non-voting members prior
to any vote taken. Splitting out a vote list would preclude that interaction.
Particularly if voting were to be done on a list.

I do, however, agree that there should be some criteria by which it is 
determined
who is allowed to vote at the meetings. I would suggest, rather than so 
many meetings
per year/six months, that a total number of meetings be established and once
a member attends the required number of meetings they would receive voting
privileges. Or, perhaps require so many meetings and one service to the group,
be it Saturday Sale duty or helping out at an install fest. It could also 
be established
that non-attendance for a specified length of time (perhaps a year) would 
disqualify
a member from voting until they had once again attend the requisite number of
meetings to regain voting privileges.

In any case, some method of sorting out voting vs non-voting members is
something that the group should address. Ideally with a spirit of inclusion
and not one of exclusion.

Great proposal James.

wayne


>--joh
>
>-- 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