The Future of PLUG

[Thomas Mondoshawan Tate]

--rQ2U398070+RC21q
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 01:36:11PM -0700, Jim wrote:
> At the last PLUG meeting at Sequoia Jiva stepped down as the leader of PL=
UG
> and asked me to assume that position.  I believe in PLUG and accepted.  I
> take over for Jiva only with the acceptance of you, the members.  I know
> that this position is a large responsibility and I also know that I will
> not be able to get anything done without your help. I am not going to
> promise that PLUG will take a certain direction because I view the positi=
on
> as a facilitator of the wishes of the members.
>=20
> You all know who I am.  I have tried to gently nudge PLUG and its members
> in the past.  Now, I guess my nudging days are over.  I do believe that t=
he
> most important thing that I can do is to listen to the members.  If the
> members come up with an idea that we agree is worth pursuing, it is my job
> to make sure that there are people in place to make it happen.  I know th=
at
> no one person can do everything. I also know that if many people
> contribute, everyone has less to do and we end up accomplishing much more.
>=20
> Some of the things that I have been hearing and that I think are worth
> pursuing:
>=20
> Starting a newbie meeting.  Some of the topics that we have had in the pa=
st
> are way above the people just coming into Linux.  They have found Linux as
> an alternative and need to know the things that the gurus learned a long
> time ago.  I think PLUG needs to support these newbies and help to get th=
em
> on the road to enjoying and contributing to Linux and to PLUG.

Agreed, though let's try not to take the tack of "dumbing down" all of the
meetings for this purpose -- that would be counterproductive. How about if,
when we have a 'guru' meeting taking place, that we have a newbie meeting
just before it where we outline the basics needed to use/understand what
would be discussed during the 'guru' meeting? This would keep the group in
sync with each other, and soften the learning curve for the advanced stuff
later on.

> Keeping PLUG informal.  I hear the members saying that we are doing just
> fine and that we should not try to change PLUG by setting up a more formal
> organization.  Besides, AZOTO now exists to do the kinds of things that
> require a formal organization.

Agreed again. I've seen too many clubs and organizations that try to go
through formailitization (is that a word? =3Dop) and end up breaking apart
because of silly and often pointless arguments over who is going to be the
chairperson or the president. As long as we prevent formalities such as the
position of "chairperson" or "president" from existing within the group,
there will be no such reason to squabble over the "power" provided with it.

The same goes with cryptographic voting, etc. If we institute such a
practice, who is to say that accusations will be made that votes were
counted wrong, etc? I realize that these kinds of situations might seem a b=
it
far out, but they have been known to happen... o.o

> I have a couple of things that I would like to see on the agenda.
>=20
> Getting more exposure for PLUG.  People find us because they are looking
> for us for whatever reason.  PLUG can get out into the community and let
> people know that they have options.  Granted, we cant go out and
> participate in things like other conventions and expositions in the area
> because we do not have finances.  But we can do things like setting up a
> table at places like Borders (or whoever else will let us) and pass out
> information about Linux and PLUG.

Sounds good to me, but isn't that what AZOTO is for?

> More Steering Committee meetings.  Both closed meetings (open to SC membe=
rs
> only) and open meetings (everyone welcome to come and participate).  The
> Steering Committee is the invisible hand that guides PLUG and it should be
> more active.  Closed meetings are nice to keep tabs on current activities,
> but open meetings get more input from the members and help to decide what
> activities, if any, the members want us to get going, keep going, and quit
> doing.

Why "closed meetings"? If we go for formalization, I can see where they
would be useful, but if not, what would be the point? Since we're an
informal group of friends looking to share information, wouldn't closed
meetings be a bit counterproductive?

> So tell me what you think.  Don't try to call me.  My phone line is
> usually busy with the Internet.  I read my email frequently and I read mo=
st
> of the posts to the PLUG mailing lists (altho I admit that I skip by a lot
> of items that have topics that I dont think I can contribute anything to).

Eh... The above is my $42 billion. =3Dop

--=20
Thomas "Mondoshawan" Tate
phoenix@psy.ed.asu.edu
http://tank.dyndns.org

--rQ2U398070+RC21q
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE71kz0Yp5mUsPGjjwRAlJ9AKCDFPUTAlWDidO0eg8PJCJdo5n8ZQCeN2ey
SnEu+Pnh8nt9bf0cYlTfZFA=
=6E7y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--rQ2U398070+RC21q--