On Saturday 07 December 2002 11:14, Paul M Foster wrote:
> I completely understand your concerns, but umm, let's see. That
> would be more work for... let's see... that would be-- _me_. ;-}
>
> Of course, if someone can make a compelling case for "SLUG
> certification", I'm open to the idea. But so far, it doesn't seem
> viable.
>
> Paul
Here's a bit of my experience.
These are all good ideas, but maybe just a bit out sequence.
What we have here is something which really is, new and untried.
There's a lot to be said for the willingness and excitement to
create something, like this team. As someone who's created teams
from scratch many a time I'm wising up to doing things in a more
optimum order to avoid wasting time and energy past it's point of
viability.
The way I've found it to work best for me, is that rather than
building something untested, I slowly expand the operation based on
progress. For example when I did programming I never invested time
writing a program _I_ thought would be popular. I went by what
people told me they wanted.
So I delivered some service or product. Then based on actual
interest I'd expand _that_ area. Early on I got very excited about
a business I'd started and I added all sorts of ways (about 20 I
think) of measuring the condition of my business. I ended up
spending more time doing that over a couple of weeks before I
realized I spent more time on internal paper work rather than on
potential customers. That's backwards.
The first step, in my experience, is to produce something valuable
that is needed and wanted. Then as things expand and new situations
and needs arise from doing so, adopt some policy that addresses it.
In other words I don't organize before I produce. (Well some things
like having the tools for the job and so on, but not build an
organization, on paper, ahead of time. Unless you have money to
throw at it. : )
It is only too easy to create rules that end up stopping you from
getting the job done by adding inapplicable or misdirected rules.
I.e. not needed bureaucracy!
I'd suggest we become helpful, get exchange in some way for our
efforts and take it from there. SLUG is what it is, a user group.
Not a business or consultant, just a group of Linux users with
varying degree of proficency. But with one valuable quality -
willingness to help!
Each one of us have different abilities that we can ask whatever we
want for. Some may make an install for the experience, others will
charge money.
What we can do is help each other when we fail in providing proper
help by offering each other aid to cover what they don't know.
Some "customers" will be unhappy with what is done for them rightly
or wrongly. That's just the way it is. If I find a customer who is
not willing to exchange with me I drop them. Then try to avoid
dealing with the same type of people in the future. Others are just
great and refer more business to you for long time.
As long as each one of us are willing to be responsible for what we
do we cannot go wrong. If you don't deliver the product you were
supposed to, you obviously cannot ask to get paid for it.
Something I found _very_ successful was to focus on solving problems
for my client. Not seing how much money I could make on them. In
other words my attention was on products not money. The magic with
that was if I needed money all I did was looking for something I
could do for someone, then make and deliver it. Works like magic.
I have this policy of charging for my time and effort. People need
to exchange in some way with you. May it be coffee and sandwitches
or greenbacks ($). Otherwise they easily get out of exchange and
often become a source of natter and complaints, and a never ending
source of trouble.
I do vary my rates depending on what I do and whom I do it for, just
to try to be more inline with them. And if I cannot afford them I
don't do the job.
We might want to have a fixed list heading for issues related to
being Linux "commandos" or "missionares" so that those involved
with it can have a more direct method of communicating with each
other.
Otherwise I say let's keep it simple for now.
--Steve ___________________________________________________________ HTML in e-mail is not safe. It let's spammers know to spam you more, and sets you up for online attack through IE 4.x and above. Using HTML in e-mail promotes it as safe to the uninitiated.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 18:48:45 EDT