Note: I do not aim to take anything away from PLUG. A LoCo group is a
specific thing that may or may not fit well with the operations and views
harbored at PLUG. I do not want to impose unpredictable effects on PLUG at
this time. In summary I do not suggest that PLUG and Arizona LoCo are
mutually exclusive, but I also do not imply that they are mutually
interchangeable.
In a general note, I regard PLUG as the best technical group in the
Valley. I have had minimal interactions with Hans and Alan and they have
extended a measure of generosity to me in hosting a presentation and
responding to questions in a forthright manner. Hans and Alan have been
great. Thanks!
-jmz
On 9/25/06, Eric Shubes <
plug@shubes.net> wrote:
>
>
> 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
>
--
.0000. communication.
.0001. development.
.0010. strategy.
.0100. appeal.
JOSHUA M. ZEIDNER
IT Consultant
++power; ++perspective; ++possibilities;
( 602 ) 490 8006
jjzeidner@gmail.com
---------------------------------------------------
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)