Regards,
Jason Greenwood
Zane Gilmore wrote:
On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 23:26, John S Veitch wrote:Hello AllMy vision for the Canterbury Linux Users Group was very soundly defeated last night. There was little aspiration among those in attendance to make the group into a strong dynamic and effective organisation.I disagree though what I probably disagree with is the definition of: "strong dynamic and effective" I think we have been very effective in what *we want* to do.It's a "users group" it's for us, the users. If people want to join fine, join the list, become a user. We don't need a structure, a committee, elections or rules. We're just a list and our method is "to volunteer". If there are volunteers things happen and if nobody bothers then nothing happens. Creative anarchy.which IMO is exactly as it should be as if nobody *wants* to do it then it *shouldn't* be done. This is a *voluntary* organisation. That means it exists because our members intend to have fun or believe it's a good thing. For me a large part of why I go to the meetings is for a chin wag *not* to make motions to amend motions!STOP. Think. Remember the first ideas you had about computer programming. You tried to write a big long thing called "programme" and you had a few bits that didn't fit so they became "another programme 1" and "another programme 2". I expect you all know enough to know that this approach to writing software is disastrous. STRUCTURE is critical. In the next year I'd like to see us all thing a lot about the best structure for our group.Your metaphor is not sound. Human beings are not Turing machines.The committee elected last night need to experiment with structure a little bit and report back to us about "what works" we need leadership.Why do we need leadership?Here's what we did last night. (As a programme) Main Programme: Part 1 Organise the meeting Part 2 Organise the meeting Part 3 Organise the meeting Part 4 Organise the meeting Part 5 Organise the meetingWe had a admittedly meandering discussion about what we wanted to do a CLUG meetings. What was wrong with that? As I said before, a large part of why we go to these meetings is for a chin-wag with like minded Linux users. Who cares if we don't achieve...what?End of main Programme New Programme: Look after the money New Programme: Publicity for the Install Fest. New Programme: Supper and meeting setup. New Programme: The CLUG website and email archives.You got the order wrongIt's untidy guys. It won't get better if we avoid thinking about it. You know what happens to a programme that's convoluted and confused, it becomes useless and impossible to maintain. We can do better.What's to maintain? What use are you speaking of?Regards John John S. Veitch mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Photo Available on WWW http://www.ate.co.nz/johnsveitch.jpg Adapt to ExperienceI agree, you should ;-) With all of that said, I thank you for speeding up the voting process. However voting on amending the blasted motion I did find irritating :-P
