W. Blaine Dowler wrote: > On Monday 29 July 2002 09:58, you wrote: > > >>Understood, however this _can_ change. =) > > > Yes, but should it?
IMHO, yes, but that's something perhaps individual LUG's should think about and vote on. Do they wish to help promote the widespread use of Linux? I would argue to do so, one needs a national strategy. If LUG's don't wish to participate then perhaps they would give up representation and a vote on CLUE? I don't know - thinking out loud here... >>Otherwise, what exactly is a >>LUG's purpose in life? Just to gather around the fire and trade war >>stories and feel good about using Linux? > > > That's why I started attending. (Well, that, and the fact that it's the best > Linux tech support in the area that I know of.) <grin> a perfectly justifiable reason! >>I think LUG's would have a >>vested interest in helping promote the "Gospel of Linux", which can't be >>done on effort alone, it takes funding. And if many of these geeks feel >>uncomfortable about the commercial entities anty-ing up to the party, >>this is their chance to put their $ where their .... well uno how it >>goes. As Evan so succinctly stated, attorney's [whether one likes them >>or not] are a necessary entity, as well as expert, knowledgeable advice. >>This sometimes doesn't come free. Perhaps at some point CLUE might need >>a professional executive, someone working full time to further the >>aims/ideals of CLUE and it's membership. > > > I think it's a good idea for CLUE to be a legal entity with some such > structure. I don't have a problem with the local LUG (ELUG) organizing some > sort of fundraiser with the proceeds going to CLUE for the purpose of > promoting Linux on a national scale. However, the idea of CLUE coming to > LUGs and asking them to start charging for membership to pass that money > along to a group the people may not have joined is not something I'm > comfortable with. (I haven't been reading most of the debate, so I could be > comletely misreading what you've said above. If so, I apologize.) Yes of course CLUE shouldn't insist on LUG's charging, but if the LUG wishes to have voting power and a presence on the CLUE board, then I suggest this would be an avenue to do so. Contribute financially, perhaps there are other ways a LUG could contribute as well... > LUGs should decide individually if they want to charge for membership, and > what they should do with that membership money. If they choose to pass it > along to CLUE, fine. If not, that's their choice, although it may not be the > best thing for nationwide adoption of Linux. If they want to help out CLUE > in some other way, that's that LUG's choice. True, but at some point, rules have to be laid down as to what is acceptable and what isn't. Too much democracy and nothing will ever reach a consensus. <snip> >>And "E" stands for...? > > > Edmonton. OIC. =) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
