Re: Organizational "Stuff"

["Richard F. Harrison" <rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chris,

I tend not to think in straight lines.  I try to shake myself and others
around me out of their preconceptions into new modes of thought whenever
possible.  I'm usually suspicious of "the tried and true."  My intent is
not to propose anything so much as to discourage the KLUG from accepting
any particular, conventional definition of membership without first
being forced to recognize the rather revolutionary nature of its
status.  We're a bunch of cyber-wonks.  The only reason we've come
together is to promote a hackers' OS.  This seems to me to indicate a
predisposition to being promisingly unconventional, a state of affairs
of which I approve mightily and wish to encourage.  At the meeting,
everyone seemed focused on a very small issue.  Mr. Brown finds this
desirable, in that it permits a group of relative strangers, who share
no great experience at cooperation with each, to take a small and
apparently significant step together in a direction which is no way
irreversible.  I'm the wee-est bit more anarchistic than Mr. Brown. None
of us would interested in KLUG, if we were stupid.  Let's face it, as a
block, we drag the IQ average upward.  Thus, I feel obliged to challenge
the KLUG to think in more radical ways about the nature of participation
and support of the group than I would the local Elks' Club.  I may not
have proposed a single idea about alternative definitions of
"membership" which will strike a resonant chord with the group, but I
hope to make eveyone consider and suggest things outside the bounds of
the commonplace, old-style boundaries of the notion of "group." 

For example, how do you know when it's been "long enough" to await an
e-mail response?  Set a standard, e.g., distribute the minutes within
three days of each meeting - if there's no response on an item requiring
a "vote" by the day before the meeting, that's long enough.  Further,
the KLUG doesn't need to 'grave in stone that or any other rule. If a
form doesn't prove wonderfully useful, spindle, fold and mutilate 'til
it fits the need it is intended to serve.  The KLUG participants have
more practice thinking than most people (most of us do it for a living
in ways most other people can't even imagine) - that's a supremely
valuable resource, in that we have more experience in critical, logical
flexibility than the unwashed masses. Let's take advantage of that
asset. 

Hope that gives what you wanted or at least a line of attack for your
follow-up  questions.

Richard


CJGIDMAN@am.pnu.com wrote:
> 
>      Hi Rick,
> 
>      I've read this message several times now and even discussed it at
>      length with Bob.  However, I'm still not sure I see what you're
>      getting at.  Perhaps that's a reflection of my own bias or
>      intelligence level.  I don't know, but whatever the reason, I'd
>      like to ask a few questions in order to clarify your intentions
>      in my mind.
> 
>      What are your intentions here? (A good question for the above
>      stated purpose, don't you think?)
> 
>      It seems as though you're trying to spur the group into deciding
>      how they define a member.  Is that correct?  Are you concerned
>      that the "three meeting rule" will stick and that will be,
>      forevermore, how we define members?
> 
>      I also wondered if you were trying to propose a third alternative
>      besides those motions already on the floor.  Is that the case?
> 
>      You see, I tend to agree that we need to define membership.
>      Perhaps that's why I don't see your objective.  Maybe it's
>      obvious.  I don't necessarily agree with your proposed scheme for
>      KLUG, but perhaps that's the part I should discuss with you in
>      the public forum, once I establish that this is the point of your
>      message.
> 
>      Chris.
>      CJGidman@am.pnu.com
>