Original Message ----------------------- I agree, if you don't like how CLUG is being run. or it isn't meeting your needs, either a) try and fix it yourself (which I did and it didn't seem to work well for me) or b) quit being an active member of the group (which is the option I chose after exhausting option a). The other option is to start your own LUG!! That is an option I would have exercised long ago if I had the time to run a LUG myself. I do like strong leadership/organisation/focus and I would be that strong leader if I started my own LUG. Other than that, stick with CLUG for good or for bad, I personally don't see it changing in any major way to what it is now, though in time I'll be happy to stand corrected.
Regards, Jason Greenwood Zane Gilmore wrote: >On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 23:26, John S Veitch wrote: > > >>Hello All >> >>My 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 meeting >> >> > >We 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 wrong > > > >>It'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 Experience >> >> > >I 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 > > > > > > I do not agree with what went on last night, but the group felt that things would function better with a committee so that is the way they voted. I know of one group (ok it is not in the same field) but it is functioning well without a committee, all you need is someone to orginise events and activities for the group. Because the group has gone ahead and formed a committee do not mean I hold a grudge against the group, they did what they thought was right for the group. Perhaps we now see the group really take off now Regards, Kevin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
