Meetings' Structure

[Brian Densmore]

Time for my $0.02. I would like to see structure. But also respect the
wishes for others to have the freedom. What I suggest is having perhaps
a meeting within the meeting. Those that are interested in a particular
"topic of the day" can take part in that and the others can be as usual
and just socialize. Also it is always possible to suggest a topic for
nay meeting. We have had presentations and speakers on days that were
technically installfests. My opinion should not carry much weight as it
will be some considerable time till I am able to attend again. 17 hour
work days tend max out my free time. Not even sure if a meeting within
the meeting is feasible for all topics. I have seen a few happen though.
Anyone who wants structure should consider what it is they want and make
a plan and pass it around the list to see who signs up for it.

Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jared Smith [mailto:jared at trios.org]
> Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 12:14 PM
> To: kclug at kclug.org
> Subject: Re: Meetings' Structure
> 
> 
> Would all of the people who wish to have a KCLUG
> with lots of structure, please start their own friendly user
> group? I'm deeply happy with the current structureless
> meetings, finding here something that I cannot find
> anywhere else on the planet.
> 
> To me, structure sucks. KCLUG works like Linux: If you 
> want something to happen, make it happen. Don't wait for
> it to happen. However, the only thing that screws up
> this amazingly open structure... is structure.
> 
> Start another group. There's room. I'd show up at the 
> structured LUG occasionally, but only if there was 
> something really interesting goin on.
> 
> I have been involved in several 501c3s, started one
> myself even, and found no matter how hard y'try, 
> that as soon as a telephone number is attached to the 
> group, then comes a hierarchy, because someone has 
> to manage the phone. Then comes a political power 
> struggle which NEVER ENDS. It also begins to cost
> money for no good reason. And people who simply 
> want to learn have to jump through all kinds of 
> administrative hoops to do so. I am adamantly,
> firmly, unequivocally opposed to KCLUG having any
> more structure than it does now. Ever. The trade show
> was one of the funnest things I've done in years, and
> it all came together quite naturally, without structure.
> 
> I mean no harm, but structure-dependent people do
> have the option of starting up a whole new LUG which
> works in cooperation with the current KCLUG.
> 
> In short, if you want to make KCLUG work top-down and
> slowly and inefficiently and be unable to address individual 
> concerns, add structure to it: Kansas City Structured 
> Linux Users Group.
> 
> This would be called a fork, I believe. And I think you'd
> find it easy to do, since it looks like you've got some
> momentum for the idear. But remember, please, the
> momentum was birthed within a structureless 
> environment.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> -Jared
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> majordomo at kclug.org
>