Re: Organizational "Stuff"

["Robert G. Brown" <bob@xxxxxxx>]

Richard Harrison <rick@net-link.net> wisely arranged bytes to say:
>	We live in an extremely "e" world.  If you can't make the meetings (not
>"e"), you should be able to use e-mail or the phone (ancient "e") to
>make contact with the group.
As a new member, Richard is perhaps unaware of the extent to which this group
has been built on USENET newsgroup articles calling for participation, our
mailing list, other agressive uses of email, our website, and so on. I believe
we all understand the degree to which electronic communication is at the core
of our group, and that if we're going to make progress on any matters of inter-
est to the group as a whole, it's going to take place largely via email.

AFAIK, Of the close to thirty poeple who have attended our meetings since
October, less than 25% have heard about the group by means other than the net.
Less than 10% of the people attending are not connected.

>When it comes to contact with any group, I
>suggest that the membership should be based on CONTACT as some variation
>of the following: 
>
>	- physical presence at meetings
>	- voting on issues via e-mail or phone
>	- submissions of points of interest "re" Linux from the web or hard
>         publications
>	- technical articles (from unexpected places) or presentations of
>         personal interest
>	- money
Taken individually, these are all interesting points, and it's worth 
considering each. All of these activities indicate different kinds
of participation. We have choices in how we want to value each type of
involvement, and we've barely started to examine that.

Mr. Harrison sets all of these ideas in front of us, but provides little or
no guidance about timing or priority. While each of these are practical and
useful, how we integrate them into the construction of a good group is as
yet an open item.

>	How about the following scheme for KLUG:
>	- start-up is "automatic"...thereafter...
IMHO this needs to be clarified... I havn't the foggiest idea what it means.
>	- attend one-third of the meetings in any six months
>	- respond with opinions and/or votes on at least half the issues
>         presented (BY SOME MEANS)
>	- articles, presentations, web-directions to "cool" (PERTINENT) sights
>	- $20 (or some other amount) annually

Again, the above appear to be good ideas, by themselves. Richard leaves it to
us as a group to place weights on these things and make choices. The sense 
that I get from these points is the specific values (how often one attends,
how much money one is asked for, etc.) is not as important as the suggestion
that there are a number of different ways to define participation (and thus
membership); we're encouraged to think of these, and more.

As a practical matter, some of these place a high degree of burden on anyone
who wishes to decide who is a member, and who isn't. Is someone to keep track
of how many useful sites I've posted to the mailing list? Are the number of
useful answers to questions a way to decide if someone is a member? Who de-
cides, and who does the work?

>	Since I won't be a voting member, under the scheme to which my voice
>lost on Sunday....
I'm not exactly sure what this means, and perhaps it'll help if a context is
set.

On Sunday, we decided to put one idea in place along the lines of Matt's
suggestion (posted last weeek to this mailing list) that we define what it 
takes for votes to take place at a meeting.  After some discussion, we came
up with two slightly different ideas..(see the mail message from Matt, a 
couple of nights ago, on this topic. If you want/need another copy, please 
ask him, myself, or any others who keep extensive records of email messages).

We took a vote of the people present, but we did not want to limit
the vote to only those people who showed up. Since the vote was still in 
progress when the meeting ended, there has been no announcement of the vote
so far. Also, we decided to keep the vote open to everyone on the mailing list 
(the closest to a working definition of "membership" we have at the moment).
If you were not at Sunday's meeting,

                       *** You Can Still Vote ***

Since Richard cast a vote on Sunday, I'm not sure what he's driving at...
his vote is being counted along with anyone elses, even if other voters
have attended NO meetings. 

There is no motion or statement about other forms of participation or decision
making; Richard's points about e-participation are well taken. It would appear
more natural (in my view, and in the view of others at the meeting) to adopt a
couple of things and see how they work, and move forward with recognition of 
other kinds of participation after discussion. 

I understand the impulse to decide everything at once, lay all the issues out
on the table right away, and decide them all, once and definitively. In reality
this ideal almost never happens. Instead, striving for something ideal from a
standing start results in endless dicussion, and NOTHING gets done.

Richard has done the group a service by bringing these ideas up, and they're
worth kicking around now, perhaps even voting on (in some form) as we move
forward. What's in front of us right now is how we vote at meetings, and I 
would urge you to vote this week... before Sunday.

Always interested in questions, comments, follow-ups...

                                                   Regards,
                                                   ---> RGB <---