[aclug-L] Re: An idea -- any volunteers/helpers?

[Kirk Lancaster <lancaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Now that I am back from California and attempting to read through all 
this, it strikes me that, at least until ACLUG moves away from WSU, that 
meeting on Friday nights (please do not throw things) would mean we 
could meet when the campus is (essentially) empty.  Campus police 
will open locked buildings for scheduled events, parking is no problem, 
etc. (Just an idea.)
Sincerely,
Kirk 

On Friday 08 February 2002 08:46 am, you wrote:
> I have, so far, refrained from joining in on the discussion of the last few
> days.
> I must also disclaim that I am still about a day behind in reading the
> postings to the lists on the current topic of concern.
>
> After reading some of the messages, post-Wednesday meeting, I would like
> to address one issue, the new list for attending members only.
>
> At 05:03 PM 2/7/2002 -0600, you wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> > > This "new" list idea is inherently exclusionary and seems un-necessary.
> > >
> > > Why have any list at all? Ryan seems to believe that the MEETINGS and
> > > only the  MEETINGS are the valuable part of ACLUG.  It's where the
> > > business gets done  right?  It the only forum for suggestions and the
> > > only channel that will be  heeded and the only place for decisions to
> > > be proposed and ratified.
> >
> >I'm not suggesting we don't want suggestions, ideas, questions from people
> > who don't attend.. Not at all, everyone is completely free and welcome to
> > participate completely online and never attend a meeting...
>
> I live in El Dorado. I abhor the hassle of dealing with the WSU campus to
> get to a meeting, especially when the last meeting I did attend, hoping to
> learn something on the topic presented, was an utter waste of effort.
>
> I mention this because, you say that you are interested in finding out what
> can be done to improve attendance at meetings, but you wish to exclude me
> from the list on which I could contribute my thoughts on the situation.
> That approach strikes me as counter-productive.
>
> >There is however a need for those who attend the meetings to be able to
> >communicate between each other... Like you said, how am I supposed to know
> >who showed up to what meeting.. From yesterdays meeting most people were
> >supportive of a form of sign in sheet or roll call at meetings so we have
> >records of who showed up and if its there first meeting or what...
> >
> >Another reason for the other forum is for when votes have to take place..
> >Yesterday there were a few people who participate in ACLUG constantly who
> >could not make it... We should include these people when we take a survey
> > on what day of the week we should hold a meeting on since they actually
> > attend.. This is another reason why another mailing list was chosen..
>
> What is the reason for excluding those who could come to meetings, but
> for whatever reason, don't. Some of us are prevented by work from being
> there. Others, like myself, have to get to Wichita, after an already long
> day, and do battle with the parking on campus. In any case, should the fact
> that we only attend occasionally preclude us from the privilege of being
> granted input on the meetings?
>
> Were the meetings to prove of greater value, I would be more inclined to
> make the effort to get there. But, if I only attend one or two meetings a
> year, I can't be heard on matters relating to the meetings. At least until
> I've
> made it to a meeting to sign up for the new list.
>
> > >> Major internal reorginsation of ACLUG is taking place right now and
> > >> lots of things are likely to change in the coming months.. And its the
> > >> people who take the time to attend meetings that the council wants the
> > >> most input from.. Don't take it personal if you have never attended a
> > >> meeting and you seem to get blown off, thruthfully if you don't attend
> > >> a meeting you would be lucky to know 25% of what's going on in ACLUG..
> > >
> > > I'm glad the group is focused on re-organizing and changing.  I'm sorry
> > > that I  have to hold the conch at a meeting to have my opinions and
> > > suggestions heard.
> >
> >You don't have to attend a meeting to have your opinions and suggestions
> >heard, however there are topics that we need opinions and suggestions on
> >that only people who go to meetings should have input on.. For example,
> > which days to have meetings on, and how often, which topics need to be
> > discussed and whatnot.. If you don't attend then all this is irevelant to
> > you..
>
> Here is another reason not to exclude potential attendees from the list
> for attendees only. If I can't make it on Monday nights, you have excluded
> me from being able to convey, via the accepted method (the new list), my
> opinion on the best night to meet.
>
> > > Does anyone from the high holy council accept the responsibility to
> > > inform the  list members of what happened at the meetings?
> >
> >I have no idea, but I do agree that it needs to be done
> >
> > > If the meetings are the "thing" or the passkey to ACLUG membership,
> > > then ACLUG  effectively and terminally limits its audience to FAR less
> > > than the 300 current  subscribers to the various lists.  Which seems to
> > > me to be the direct anthesis  of "spreading the linux gospel".
> >
> >A formal membership might bring more people to meetings, which is the main
> >goal.. I don't think anyone cares how friggin many people subscribe to the
> >mailing lists.. Its the number of people who come to meetings that we are
> >concerned with.. If there were special benefits for attending (like book
> >discounts, invites to other aclug events or whatever they come up with)
> > then that might entice people to at least come and visit us every once
> > and a while...
>
> More likely, a formal membership may actually keep people from the
> meetings. It has been mentioned by several people that the meetings are
> less than a friendly experience for the newcomer, or infrequent visitor.
> Yes, I've sensed that too. Last meeting I attended Bruce was the only
> person to speak to me. The two members of the high council that I sat next
> too never even acknowledged my existence. Making an issue of "formal
> membership" would seem, to me, to only increase the feeling of alienation
> that newcomers and irregulars already suffer.
>
> > > In a previous post, I made a suggestion that we be polite and
> > > respectful of  others and their respective opinions and suggestions.
> >
> >I completely agree, although we are humans.. not some program written by
> >humans.. sometime emotions come out and a bad day at work could lead to
> >telling a newbie to RTFM in an irritated demeanor..
> >
> > > I'd like to re-iterate that suggestion.  But, I guess since this
> > > suggestion  wasn't made in a MEETING, it won't be heard.
> >
> >As for the online presence of aclug, I think everyones suggestions and
> >meetings are heard... But you must realize the big problems we are trying
> > to solve now are mainly regarding the meetings of aclug, this is what
> > people are going to be seeing change in.. the way things are conducted in
> > mailing lists and stuff are unlikely to change.. So for the time being
> > anyone who has an suggestion that is likely to change how meetings are
> > held will only be HEARD if they take the time to attend meetings.. Allot
> > of people have allot of suggestions but its allot more complicated than
> > the non-attendees realize.. I know this, I subscribed to this mailing
> > list LONG before I started attending meetings... Once I showed up
> > everything changed..
> >
> >Everyone is heard, just not everyone is listened to..
>
> Now this strikes me as just plain rude. Who decides who's input is worthy
> of consideration? If we must take the chance of "not being listened to"
> what incentive is there for even trying. This is exactly the attitude that
> has kept me from bothering to join the fray of the last few days. It amazes
> me that anyone would actually acknowledge that the input from some of us is
> not valued at all.
>
> >I don't believe anyone wants it so only those who attend have a voice, but
> > all these new changes to ACLUG that are taking place really only have any
> > effect to those people who come to meetings, We want to know from the
> > people who have been to meetings what needs to be done to make the
> > MEETINGS more organized and in a standard format..
>
> Well, then excluding me from the new list is the perfect way to make it
> convenient
> for me to express my thoughts on the meetings.
>
> >And it would make everyone happy if
> >these ideas were expressed AT the meetings so its quick and easy to get
> > the consensus of everyone at the meeting...
> >
> >Even if you don't come to meetings and you want to make some suggestions
> > on how meetings are held, you are completely welcome and free to do so..
>
> But, will anyone be listening if it isn't on the meeting attendees only
> list?
>
> >After
> >yesterdays meeting I think it was clear to everyone that the best way to
> >brainstorm and implement these ideas is via the meetings so everyone can
> > get direct and immideate feedback. Despite this lists recent boost in
> > traffic I think it was obvious that better ideas and feedback was
> > achieved when we were all in the same room.. This is why there is going
> > to be another meeting held Monday and why we are trying to get everyone
> > who has ideas and suggestions to be there so others can give feedback,
> > opinions, or whatever right there in person...
> >
> >Hope all this came out the way I intended it to...
> >
> >-Ryan
>
> Most of it did. I have the same hope for my expression of my thoughts on
> the matter.
>
> Two main recommendations I would offer are to get the meetings off of
> the WSU campus. That alone is enough to keep me away And, secondly,
> consider some way to include potential attendees in the new list. If we are
> discouraged from contributing, how will we ever matter?
>
> When communicating it is important to keep in mind that what is said is
> only one of the messages transmitted. It troubles me that the current
> sub-message that I am getting (and not just from this posting) is that
> "we're only saying what we perceive we have to. We don't really want to
> include everyone that we possibly could." If I'm getting that, how many
> others are as well? Sadly, it is often necessary to expend as much effort
> in dealing with perceptions as with reality.
>
> Thank you to the those who are listening. I pray I've offended no one. I
> am among those who would like to see the ACLUG return to relevance locally.
>
> wayne
>
> -- 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