Josh Coffman wrote:
>
> --- Joshua Zeidner <jjzeidner@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/25/06, der.hans <PLUGd@lufthans.com> 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
(text/plain)