Meeting reminder

[M. Osten]

> Here's the problem as I see it - we have a fundamental problem with
> overlap.  KULUA covers Topeka, Lawrence, and Kansas City.  KCLUG covers
> Kansas City.  If we are going to promote LUGs, then we should promote
> both, right?
>
> However, this leads to a problem -- if people are getting information for
> two LUGs that cover similar areas (KC), then most likely then people would
> join _both_ LUGs.  This isn't a problem in and of itself, but it tends to
> cause group dissolution and really begs the question:  do we need both
> LUGs?  LUGs benefit mostly by having a large critical mass.  I don't know
> the member distribution of KCLUG, but it seems like most people on the
> distribution list are members of both groups.
>
> In case someone doesn't know, I'm the president of KULUA.  I'd like to see
> the both of us work together, but I feel we should talk about boundaries.

I agree.  I think we should disband both groups and create a group called
LEGO (Linux Ego's Gone Orbital).  But seriously, I think that both groups
serve their purpose just fine.  KCLUG serves the persons that are more
interested in gaining technical knowledge, and having a structured technical
meeting. Kulua serves the persons that are more interested in Capt. Morgan,
and the discussion of the Matrix.  Nothing wrong with either.

But more to the point, are you suggesting that KULUA absorbed KCLUG into its
ranks?  Or are you suggesting that we all divide the Linux demographic at
say, DeSoto?  The truth be told, both groups had very little overlap until
just recently (at least among the "active" members of KULUA that I've
acctully met), and I didn't see it causing much dissolution.  I wouldn't
mind a "merger", it just adds to the community, but the question is, could
we all be nice neighbors.