[Linux-aus] Re: LUG/SIG contacts (was: "SCO case: Australian LUGs")

[Michael Still]

On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Leon Brooks wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 10:43, Michael Still wrote:
> > At the end of the article, Sam comments that the Canberra, Sydney,
> > and Adelaide LUGs "did not bother to respond".
>
> Sam also omitted even mentioning PLUG or SLPWA, but did apologise when
> asked about this and offered to prominently publish my email as a
> letter, along with his apology.

The concensus from those I have spoken to was the quality of the article
was fairly low in general, and the assumption made by many is that Sam is
inexperienced. Clearly, as an editor, I assume this is not the case.

> > It should also be noted that Dr Tridgell gets 1,000's of emails a
> > day, speaks at many conferences, and has previously been the subject
> > of a full page article in the AFR. He is also a full time researcher
> > at IBM, as well as working on one of the most popular open source
> > packages available. Clearly, as stated on his website, he might not
> > notice every email message he receives.
>
> It's also worth noting that Andrew's "full time researcher" includes
> more frequent flyer miles than you ever want to know about, all over
> the world, and that he has always taken care to respond thoughtfully to
> anything important despite all of the above.
>
> This leads me to wonder what time frame "did not bother to respond"
> encompasses?

My understanding is that Sam sent an email. Just one. He waited a week,
and then declared that CLUG "could not be bothered". I cannot comment for
the other LUGs. He didn't ring any one of the four phone numbers of
Tridge's website, nor write to his postal address also on his website, nor
bother to send another email. He also didn't consider watering down the
wording.

It only now occurs to me the other facet. Tridge is an IBM employee. He's
not allowed to comment on outstanding litigation against IBM (all of the
LTC people at IBM are under the same rules).

> > Obviously it is not the policy of Fairfax to attempt to misrepresent
> > the LUG community in this way, and is not up to the normal standard
> > of journalism from Fairfax. I also assume that Fairfax did not seek
> > to make it harder to get responses from LUGs in the future by
> > alienating them now.
>
> Perhaps now would be a good time to make sure that the contact details
> F2 and its descendents have are correct and that the nature of those
> contacts are well understood.
>
> All of the organisations which I am on the committees of have a single
> address, committee@[domain-of-group], which lands in the inboxes of at
> least four (more usually eight) people.
>
> CLUG is fairly singular. Does CLUG have an equivalent to a committee?

No.

> Principal organisers?

No. Meetings are at regular intervals. I remind people on the mailling
list of upcoming meetings, and then the lsit comes to a concensus on what
the topic for the meeting will be. Speakers are volunteers.

> Venue contacts?

ANU provides a room, but is not strongly affiliated.

> Would something like a
> press@[domain] email be useful in CLUG's case, absent a committee?

Perhaps we should have contact@ committee@ and press@ all aliased to the
mailling list. Then again, the mailling list is prominently advertised as
was not used.

> How
> binding and/or valuable is a statement by a random CLUG member?

It would only be representitive of their own personal views. The only way
that a CLUG view could be expressed is by discussion of that view on the
mailling list. I would imagine other LUG committees would consult their
members before expressing an opinion anyway though.

> Would it be more appropriate to treat LA (Linux Australia) as the
> rendezvous point, the single contact, and rely on them to gather
> opinion from the LUGs when asked? For example, LA's current treasurer
> is on countless LUG lists, and would probably know who to ask what and
> how.
>
> > What possible action can be taken to minimise the impact this
> > statement might have between the Fairfax and the LUG community.
>
> Deeming questionmark implied, perhaps it is appropriate for the various
> LUGs and SIGs to discuss it amongst themselves for a week or so, and
> see if we can reason our way to something conclusive that Fairfax will
> be happy with, if not routing general press traffic through LA.
>
> In the immediate term, making sure that Sam's apology is prominent and
> inclusive would be a good start (if he missed all of WA, undoubtedly he
> missed significant groups elsewhere), and also making sure that he
> clearly publishes my email as being from Leon only (rather than an
> officer of any of the orgs I refer to in it) would be helpful.

Sam has in no way offered an apology to CLUG. His only statement has been
along the lines of "that's not strong language" -- a denial of the issue.

> After that, write the incident off as a learning experience for all.

Which I would be more than happy to do. I wasn't originally upset, but
Sam's unresponsiveness is starting to make me feel that way.

> Mike and Michael, I note that Sam has not yet been CC'ed into this
> thread. Should he be?

I will defer to Mike on this issue.

Cheers,
Mikal

-- 

Michael Still (mikal at stillhq.com) | Stage 1: Steal underpants
http://www.stillhq.com            | Stage 2: ????
UTC + 10                          | Stage 3: Profit