RE: Response and comments regarding the motion on meetings

[Brenda Smith <BSmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Below you'll find each of the messages posted so far on the motion
> introduced
> last Tuesday. I've include a few helpful layout pointer in {braces}, and
> label each message with the senders' name and ">" to start each line. My
> own
> remarks have no leading character.
> 
> Until now, I've been silent on this issue, as IMO the Chair should not 
> dominate discussion. Others have commented or had adequate chance, it's
> now
> my time to do so. I'll apologize for the length of this message.
> 
> "Justin Miller" <jmiller@dmci.net> wrote:
> {From the Motion}
> >A. Are held as often and whenever the group decides such
> >   meetings shall take place.  Typically this will be on each
> >   remaining Tuesday in the month.
> 
> >Is this to mean that the only meeting that is for sure going to happen is
> >the Official Meeting held on the first Tuesday of the month and all
> >unofficial meetings are held on a whim? If so, how far in advance are the
> >meetings going to be announced?  Or does it mean that I should plan on a
> >meeting every Tuesday and they will {be} informal workshops after the one
> >Official Meeting?
> 
> The short answer is no, and no. There is nothing in this motion that would
> cause anyone to believe that we're stepping away from our commitment to 
> provide weekly meetings. This motion only establishes as a rule what we've
> been doing all along, deciding that we should have meetings at a certain
> frequency, perhaps n a particular day.
> 
> Also, meetings have never been held "on a whim", and I hope that's not
> going
> to happen in the future. Meetings, including workshops, require lead time
> so
> people can be informed and prepared to discuss the topic and participate,
> and
> accomplish something.
> 
> We are looking at other forms of change for meetings, and Brenda Smith
> (our new 
> Program Director) will be handling a lot of this, and posting messages to
> the
> group as these ideas are developed. Brenda has acharter to schedule
> presen-
> tations into meeting times, whether that meeting is an "offical" meeting
> or
> not. That charter extends out as far as 6 weeks, which is what I'd like to
> see posted on the web site. We have some interesting notions of what we
> can
> do with the people and resources available, and I urge you (everyone
> reading 
> this message) to contact Brenda if you have something to offer.
	Yes Please!!!!  Thanks to those of you that have contacted me or
have been willing to present on topics you feel comfortable with when I have
"Guidoed" you

> >I think that having two types of meetings is a good idea and will
> hopefully
> >boost attendance. I think it will also help promote anticipation to the
> >limited presentations spread out over the months. I also think that only
> >having official business at Official Meetings is a good idea and will
> give
> >more time for each idea to be refined.
> 
> These are good reasons to think that this is correct. However, any changes
> are subject to recall by motion, and we have to be open-minded enough to
> be
> able to try something else if this idea is not effective. In any case, it
> is
> interesting to see why some of these ideas work (or not), and we must
> continue
> to experiment.
> 
> "Adam Williams" <awilliam@whitemice.org> wrote:
> >My feelings is that a official "meeting" that counts toward attendance
> should
> >be ANY meeting of more than some number of people where any member
> already in
> >good standing submits an attendance list within one week of the event.  I
> think
> >the honor system will work for us.  I favor the the idea of limiting
> business
> >issues to a particular meeting,  I doubt it will take up much time as the
> >officers should be able to hash most things out before time.
> Agreed. We don't want to restrict the ability to become a member, we want
> to 
> make it broader, without making it meaningless.  One of the principles
> agreed
> on when we adopted the "three-meeting rule" was that we wanted members to
> be 
> interested enough in the group to vote with their feet... come to a
> meeting,
> several times, so that someone is exposed to a few meetings before
> deciding
> that KLUG is the right group.
> 
> Having said that, I do know of one case where a current member cannot come
> to
> meetings as now scheduled due to a work/family conflict over which he has
> no
> real control. I'm sure there are other cases; and we would be a stronger
> group
> if we took some stepsto accomidate these people, which may be to move our
> meeting time, or schedule more (and different types of) meetings.
	I still think we should find a way to pole our mailing list and find
out why more people dont' participate in the meetings.  *feel like we are
trying to make decisions based on what we think to be true instead of
finding out what people want/think*  

> And yes, a number of issues can be hashed out among officers in advance,
> and I
> would strongly suggest to anyone that proposals for motions, or any ideas
> at
> all be sent to me, and I'll make sure it's presented to all the officers
> in ad-
> vance.  When we get a Recording Secretary, this will be done by that
> person.
> 
> Brenda Smith <BSmith@kushnerco.com> wrote:
> >Hey there all... Just wanted to share some thoughts on the motion
> >from Tuesday.
> 
> >1.  I am not sure how this would benefit KLUG as a whole group.
> >    From what I have observed at meetings, there is not that much
> business 
> >    conducted during a meeting.. *unless monkey business counts...*  :)
> >    Therefore I don't see a need to have catagories for meetings, or
> >    seperate meetings.
> No, monkey business doesn't count, but one of the reasons there has not
> been 
> much business conducted is that there has been no organization to conduct
> it,
> and the group has not been large enough to require it. The intent of the
> motion
> is not to set aside an entire meeting for business, but rather to keep
> things 
> much the same as they are for three meeetings a month, and spend a little
> time
> (perhaps 15-30 minutes) going over group business and debating motions and
> making decisions.  If we have no business, expect this time will drop to
> 0.
> It would be ideal if every member at a business meeting knew the what
> motions 
> were to be brought up at the meeting before arriving, so people are ready
> to 
> debate and/or vote (in favor, or against) motions and current business.
	I like the idea of knowing the motions before hand!  That would be
very helpful!!  I wouldn't mind just one meeting a month do deal with
business... but I still have trouble with the wording "official and
unoffical meetings"  And I'm not sure I understand what to do with point C
under Unoffical Meetings... Presentations not required.  Does that mean that
I schedule speakers for just the "offical" meeting?

> >2.  I do think that it could get confusing if minutes are not taken at 
> >    every meeting, as I am sure business issues will arise during the 
> >    course of the meeting.  We could loose some good thoughts and forget
> >    aspects of topics discussed if the minutes are not kept.
> Agreed. We will need minutes, although detailed descriotions of the
> technical
> material presented need not be required if the speaker will make the
> presen-
> tation material available on the web site. Some overview of the
> presentation 
> would be fine.
	Yes.. I think it would be Ideal if the person presenting could E the
webmaster a copy of the outline for the presentations with what info they
feel is pertinent.  That would take some of the pressure off the shoulders
of the Secretary.  *Secretary could always add to these points though with
anything they thought to be important, as long as it is done in a timely
fashion*

> >HOWEVER,
> >
> >3.  I believe the position of Secretary could get overwhelming for
> >    just one person who is expected to show up at every meeting and take 
> >    minutes etc.  I think some potential solutions to what I believe is
> >    the main and underlying reason for this motion would be to 
> >	A)  have two people share this position, so that not so much
> >           pressure would be on just one person to attend all of the
> >           meetings,
> >	B)  that the Secretary can delegate to others to take minutes if
> >           they are not able to attend
> >	C) or that we cut back on the meeting frequency.  *The last
> >          suggestion would have to be presented to the entire group and
> >          voted upon, and I hope to send a survey out with that question
> >          on it over the weekend.*  
> I agree with the basic point here, and we've already allowed for that in
> the
> current structure. NOWHERE does it state that any officer must do ALL the
> work
> THEMSELVES.  In several places, the descriptions of positions state that
> the
> officeholder can and should seek undersstudies, apprentices, helpers,
> assist-
> ants.  This is becasue NONE of us have all the time and energy to do ALL
> the
> things described, ALL the time. Also, we might be very good at one part of
> a
> job, but not at others. Finally, the current officers are not going to be
> there
> forever, so when our current crew moves on, it is critical that we have
> some 
> other people in place who are ready and able to take the controls and
> continue
> to run the group.
	I thought the point needed to be made that the person didn't have to
do it all themselves.  I think we can find some ways to take the pressure
off the secretary... *see different ideas throughout the E*

> Therefore, any one who is a Recording Secretary can recuit one or SEVERAL 
> note-takers, just as our webmaster can call for help if there's something
> done. Also, anyone out there who wants to learn the skills that each of 
> our officers use can step forward as helpers, assistants, apprentices.
> Want to learn HTML and help run a web site? Want to administer an FTP
> site?
> Folks, this is a chance for YOU to provide depth that this group can use,
> to
> help itself, and each of us!
	True!

> "Adam Williams" <awilliam@whitemice.org> wrote:
> {In response to Brenda Smith, point 1}
> >I think there is some advantage as people who are interested in LINUX
> won't get
> >interrupted by group issues, and those interested in the GROUP (and LINUX
> of
> >course) will know that if soemthing is going to happen (relating to group
> >structure),  it will happen at a particular place and time.
> 
> Perhaps this will be an advantage, in that there will be more appeal to
> the 
> group as a result of this change. IMO it's not too much to ask for people
> to 
> discuss how their group is being run for something like 15-30 minutes a
> month,
> when they get real benefit and enjoyment out of using something that is,
> by
> definition, of common interest to us all.
> 
> {In response to Brenda Smith, point 2}
> >I agree, no minutes worry me a little.  But I don't think it has to be
> the
> >secretary who actually takes them.  I think he/she just makes sure
> someone
> >sends him some,  keeps a copy for each meeting,  and preferably some
> misc.
> >notes and a general track on attendance.
> 
> Exactly! The Recording secretary is responsible for keeping track of the 
> records of the group, minutes, motions, etc. This is not the same as going
> it 
> alone; there's lots of room for others to contribute, even a little bit.
> 
> Mike List <troll@net-link.net> wrote
> {in general response to Brenda Smith}
> >Here is my idea; If we develop special interest groups to round out the
> >remaining 3-4 Tuesdays, ie java, or networking a team leader
> >could/should be established to make sure that relevant details of the
> >team meeting are recorded, and the experiences and experiments are
> >available to all as links on the klug site.
> This is certainly another way we can structure things; the motion permits
> this
> as well as other methods, and gives us a framework for this (or other)
> types
> of change.
	Good thoughts... I noticed during the last install meeting how much
fun everyone was having... it was a very lively and people interacted well,
showed the newbies how to do things... I was very pleased to see everyone
participating!  Maybe small groups might be a way to go too... Suggestions
Folks?

> >These could be the basis for a Linux Knowledge Base which could be a
> >potential help to the Linux community at large.
> This is an ambitius goal, somewhat beyond the scope of this motion, but we
> 
> should not forget this possibility.
> 
> >My presumption is that these teams would be a subset of the group, so
> that
> >alternate meeting places could be feasible.
> That's right, I think the teams might ADD to the total number of meetings
> the group has in a month, without meeting in the same place, but at the
> moment
> I don't want to engage in this discussion until after we've decided on the
> 
> motion in front of us.
> 
> >Another possibility is that the remaining weeks could be dedicated to
> >those involved with maintaining the site, or in depth tutorials by those
> >qualified to do so.
> Indeed, Mike is showing us some of the possible alternatives, both shorter
> and
> longer term.
> 
> Becasue of the uncharacteristc length of this message, I may send another 
> message tomorrow which states my own opinion on this motion, and I'd like
> to see what the feedback on this message will be...
> 
>                                                                 Regards,
>                                                                ---> RGB
> <---