Meetings' Structure

[Patrick M]

Linux and open source has a bit more structure than pure anarchy. Linus 
 put something together, then put it out there for people to add to it, 
make changes, and do there own projects.

With the meetings, from the previous thread, we see the need to do more. 
We just need someone to start the process. Hal or one of the people who 
are interested in something can plan a presentation several of them. 
Once we get more people interested and it is understood that 
presentations are made more interest will be generated. The forum will 
be set for people to come forth then you can--Make a call for submissions.

If I want social I want food, beer or pop, and a social setting. Heck 
where is the jolt/mountain dew and chips/candy/pizza we all had staying 
up late at the computer. Its at a library.... ok a library with no net 
access for meetings. And they probably will allow food and drink in the 
meeting room, but it's still a library.

You want social how about reserve the back room at a resteraunt. You can 
probably even get an 802.11 connection especialy if someone works/lives 
nearby.

Jared Smith wrote:

>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
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>