[Lugcomms] Hiya

[Paul Wayper]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Peter Lieverdink wrote:
| I'm not sure what our membership is doing, but meeting attendance had
| been going down a bit from 70-odd. Seems to be pulling up again at the
| moment to the mid 50s.

For our part, CLUG meetings regularly get 20-30 people with PSIGs getting more
like a dozen.

| We had an -um- issue a while back which I thought demonstrated a
| discrepancy between current membership and what I think new members want
| from LUV.

If you're talking about the issue of who talks should be aimed at, then we're
with you on that.  There are two preferences for talks here at CLUG:

1) Highly technical talks on clever esoteric subjects that most people - even
the most experienced - won't have the time or inclination to work on but are
fascinating from a hacking perspective.  Example: Steve Walsh's talk on
setting up the Eduroam network.

2) Simple how-to talks on subjects that everyone can use lack that certain
hacking je ne sais quoi.  Example: Pascal Klein's talk on how to use Inkscape.

The former gets more seasoned hackers, the latter gets more new people.  There
are a small number which, I am sad to say, will stay away from the latter; I
feel there are far larger number that will stay away from the former.  The
majority, realistically, enjoy either.

And most talks, I would say, are not really one or the other.  A classic case
would be the talk we had last Thursday: Brad Hards giving a talk on OpenChange
(a new MS Exchange server and client compatibility library set to do to
Exchange what SaMBa does to MS Server file and print).  There was a lot of
esoteric detail on flags, how Outlook and Exchange communicate, and commands
to use; likewise, most people can see the obvious benefits of replacing
Exchange in an otherwise Linux-friendly work environment.

We're making a policy of trying to have more 'simple how-to' talks, but
there's no formal process of splitting these up or alternating or anything.
We've tried a couple of formats but nothing's really stuck.

| Do any of your LUGs (or UUGs :-) have a mission statement? LUV doesn't
| have one and I was thinking that *if* we had one, we'd have a base
| document we can use to point people at what the LUG is for and what
| sorts of behaviour we will and will not tolerate from members... so
| writing up something is on our committee agenda for the next few months
| I guess.

I think my major problem with mission statements is that no-one likes having a
mission statement or formal set of objectives pointed to as the justification
for something that they don't like.  There might be a few things that they're
useful for - preventing a LUG from becoming a second-hand equipment storage
base or source of cheap-as-free labour for same, for example.  But once you
get the obligatory "We're here to promote Linux and Free Open Source Software
and provide a community for Linux Users" then I think it starts getting into
needless detail.

The important thing is now what your statement is but how you achieve it.

If you're talking about antisocial behaviour, then I think that part of "users
group" implies a "don't troll the newbs" attitude.  We all have situations
where someone's behaviour is harming the group dynamic, and I think talking
about it is better than having rules and regulations.

Just my thoughts.  Have fun,

Paul
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFH8BXju7W0U8VsXYIRAkH/AKDCgdF4U/8taw9/ux3SVF99TQFQbACg1p7P
vNnbWPa7HlwfoGFz0+6K/yY=
=cSBe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----