On July 28, 2002 08:25 pm, Evan Leibovitch wrote: > > > There are lobby groups but CLUE is not one of these either. > > It has served in that capacity in the past, at least to the extent that > CLUE directors have been quoted in the press as giving "the Linux side" > of events and the Canadian side of global Linux events. Examples:
I'm not against CLUE doing lobbying, but I'm more interested in how it could help us LUGs get together and work and look more professional first. And I do like the idea of CLUE dealing with big media like the Star, the Citizen, Globe & Mail, and television stations. Smaller media like the local dailies can be dealt with by LUG presidents though CLUE could assist in what we need to say. > Hardly. When the corporations are IBM and HP and Mandrake, which are all > trying to advocate the use of open source in Canada, their involvement in > CLUE gives respectability and legitimatcy to our aims. > > The "influence" part is tempered by having a number of companies involved. > If both IBM and HP are involved, there's an assurance that neither would > let the other "control" things. I agree. As long as the sponsorship isn't coming with specific strings attached (i.e. they're sponsoring to help CLUE achieve its goals), it'd be fine. What I am against is any argument that we need to tool the organization to do those things that will get us the more sponsorship dollars. Obviously, we have to fund the organization, so we need to offer a "product" that people will "pay" for. I don't think large-scale advocacy should be be giving a higher priority than enabling the LUGs. > I'll take my chances with the corporations. It's less hassles than the > charity route, offers a level of credibility that would take a > grassroots-only charity years to achieve, and provides a more-stable > funding formula. Charities are a special kind of non-profit that delivers services directly to individuals to meet a tangible need. I doubt CLUE would even qualify as a one There are also many charities that rely on corporate sponsorship; think about all those lotteries that the national organizations are running. It's not a clear-cut case of this or that. If we do focus on corporations as being CLUE's main source of funding, we are going to feel compelled only to do those things or to spend more of our time doing those things that corporations want us to do in order to continue getting the funding, probably Linux publicity and advocacy. I don't mind CLUE doing *some* of that, but if that's it's main purpose, then I have less interest in supporting it, at least right now. > > Not directly Linux-related, this also encompasses all the independant > > artists, private software developers etc. > > I never said it was completely Linux-related, but the open source > community does have an interest in the issue and ought to speak on it This is one of the things that concern me. We need a tight focus on what CLUE is going to do. If we had an unlimited amount of resources, we could advocate Open Source, yes, but though Linux is mostly Open Source, Open Source is not Linux. > In the meantime, what I just said above is that LUGs should be given the > tools to be able to deal with local media, to complement what CLUE can do > at a national level. Agreed. This is an area where CLUE can enable the LUGs. > (In any case, RMS is the *absolute last* person I'd want speaking to the > media on open source -- he'd get us all lableled as nutbars.) Heheehe. My thought entirely. > > A more useful idea is to prepare presentation notes that someone in > > the area familiar with the topic can use for making a presentation. > > Not good enough. That someone also needs to know how to handle the > nastiness that the media is capable of coming up with, how to handle the > reporter or analyst who has something to lose if Linux becomes popular. > Preaching to the converted is something LUGs already do extremely well. > Talking to the world outside is far more difficult. These are things that CLUE can still teach LUG leaders how to do through notes or even better, video tapes. CLUE can show by example what works and what doesn't. I don't admit to being a great public speaker, but I'm calm, collected and can think on my feet. If I had information on those specific issues, I could learn and so could other LUG leaders. > Indeed, every city needs one or more people who can do this, but equipping > them the the right raw information is only a part -- the easiest part -- > of the challenge. It's a start, though. > > This has the added bonus of creating better > > speakers who can public-relations and PR locally. > > Giving people slides and notes does not make them good speakers, or > capable of dealing with hostile questions. I agree that someone has to have a talent for speaking to begin with, but it's wrong to assume that there aren't people with the potential to be good speakers. I haven't heard you speak though I'm sure you're excellent at what you do. Don't make the assumption that those skills can't be taught without being there in person, though. > > Why are you so interested in corporate sponsorship? > > Duh. It provides money and credibility, both of which are absolutely > essential in order to accomplish any more than shouting from a website. It's not the only thing that provides money and credibility, though. LUGs can do that as well -- CLUE as the only association of x linux user groups in Canada. > In the goal of increasing awareness and use of Linux and open source, the > corporate sector can (and should) be our friend. Totally agree with that. I just don't want it to be CLUE's only or even its best friend. LUGs should be an equal partner in that. > > You may think that providing information to people is trivial, but it > > is why people use computers and the Internet. > > To people who know how to use the Internet, getting such information is > trivial. If you're in Halifax and you want to know what's going on at the > Vancouver LUG, doing the serach and finiding their site is indeed > trivial. The website doesn't tell you what the LUG is, needs or even is really doing, at least in the cases of the smaller LUGs. There's also a difference between communicating electronically versus in person. That's why IBM and SGI paid your expenses so you could go in person. > To people who don't know how to use the Internet, or for others who might > otherwise choose to be ignorant or hostile to our message, technical means > aren't good enough. -- Jason Wallwork Genetics explains why you look like your father, and if you don't, why you should. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
