Josh Coffman wrote: > > --- Joshua Zeidner wrote: > >> On 9/25/06, der.hans wrote: >>> Am 24. Sep, 2006 schwätzte Joshua Zeidner so: >>> >>>> Thanks. Ill go ahead and drive this one home if >> there is no particular >>>> opposition to my doing so. The Ubuntu LoCo >> groups are taken fairly >>>> seriously and there is a level of formality that >> may be a bit alien to >>> most >>>> Linux folks. >>> Is there a reason PLUG can't be the LoCo group? >> >> >> No reason other than my feeling that PLUG should >> not favor any one distro >> over another. > > > I feel the same. PLUG as it is has been very helpful > to me personally, and I assume many others. > > Also, I wouldn't want side groups to detract from PLUG > either. Most of us have limited time, and committing > time to something usually means less time for > something else. > > However, people who are passionate about something and > are so inclined should follow their heart. If that > means starting a local Ubuntu group, then do it. > > If we're voting, I vote PLUG remain as it is: A > distro-agnotistic and friendly group for occasionally > linux-relevant discussion. :) > > I agree that PLUG should not *favor* a particular distribution. At the same time, I don't see why PLUG couldn't be the LoCo group without *becoming* (solely) the LoCo group. The LoCo group would exist as a sort of subset of PLUG. Then again, if the LoCo group needs to formally exist, it can't be a part of PLUG because, as we all (should) know, PLUG doesn't actually exist. ;) -- -Eric 'shubes' --------------------------------------------------- PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change you mail settings: http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss