Structured Membership

[Alan Dayley]

Very interesting comments, from direct experience.

The way PLUG works now is very loose, but just tight enough to get stuff 
done.  Those that are capable and willing rise to the "top" and get stuff 
done.  Then they fade to the back or stay at the front or are pushed to the 
front by the group.  The group trusts, recognizes and places responsibility 
on those that can and want to get things done.  The utter lack of politics in 
the group is amazing and refreshing.

Paraphasing a well known document:  User's Groups are instituted among Users, 
deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Members.  PLUG exemplifies 
this all the time.  I vote to not clutter it up.

Let's pick a voluteer/drafted chair-person and keep going.  Maybe an open 
steering committee meeting is needed to determine this transition?

Alan

On Saturday 29 September 2001 09:35 am, you wrote:
> Dear Pluggers,
>
> I lived through the structuring and subsequent fracturing and demise
> of Hawaii's Linux User Group (LUAU).  It started off much like our
> Westside meetings in size and content, and as it grew to 35+ active
> participants, and 180+ listserv members, the notion of structure was
> presented.  In the interest of presenting a formal image to the
> public, so we could spread the word about Linux with credibility,
> we agreed to have a president, vice president/public relations,
> treasurer (planning for the future), and secretary (meeting minutes
> and webmaster).  This was done at the objection of the "charter
> members" of LUAU, who subsequently left the meetings, and stopped
> being an active part of the list.
>
> All went well for one year, until the positions came up for renewal.
> The vice president made a bid for president and won, and wanted to
> take the group in a direction that the group did not want to go.
> After much infighting, name calling, deceit, and worse, the group
> broke up and lost all credibility.  The charter members had their
> group, the newbies went with the president, a new group was formed
> by a close friend of mine, and everyone else went elsewhere.  This
> took about three months.
>
> Linux is open because the people involved are free thinkers, and
> generally do not like unnecessary structure (do not confuse with
> anti-structure).  If we liked being restricted in choices, we would
> be happy in a point and click environment where someone else gives
> us our choices.  Trying to impose structure on us is a very tricky
> endeavor, and one that needs considerable forethought.  I personally
> oppose such actions as requiring members to perform some action (use
> GPG to sign something) to be a member.  Our common bond is a love of
> Linux, and the power of Linux, not our ability to use crypto keys.
> If I should choose to not use crypto, that is my choice.  My
> membership is with Phoenix Linux Users Group, not Phoenix GPG Users
> Group.
>
> I've gone through a user group change that was thought to be for
> the best that turned out catastrophic.  I would hate to see the same
> thing happen here.
>
> George
> ________________________________________________
> See http://PLUG.phoenix.az.us/navigator-mail.shtml if your mail doesn't
> post to the list quickly and you use Netscape to write mail.
>
> PLUG-discuss mailing list  -  PLUG-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss