Re: [SLUG] Announcement: Formation of a new LUG

From: Ian C. Blenke (ian@blenke.com)
Date: Sun Jan 05 2003 - 14:29:06 EST


On Sun, Jan 05, 2003 at 01:36:12PM -0500, David R. Meyer wrote:
> > But a too-tight email list policy is a minor problem. A schism would be
> > far worse. Stick with the existing LUG. Work within the system. :)

There will always be a vocal dissenting minority in any group that should
really just play elsewhere. Not only does it take the edge off internal
group conflict, it tends to deter email threads like this that have nothing
to do with the purpose of the group itself.

Linux and OpenSource are our purpose. Enforcing our beliefs of what the
community "should be" (anti-commercialism) vs what has evolved into
(a viable commercial industry) simply isn't worth the bickering on a
list.

> While I certainly respect your opinions Robin, working within the system
> doesn't work here. SLUG has policies of which those of us who break
> them are reminded of, each and every infraction.

Thus the point of a policy. If you do not enforce a policy your members
simply will not follow them.

> However, when one of the SLUG officers wants to change the rules they
> constantly remind us of, then the system is broken. Case in point...
> Paul Foster reminded me that job postings belong on the jobs page when
> I found a LOCAL Linux job, and posted it, knowing for a fact that many
> of us are out of work. Not a month ago, Paul himself posts a job...
> one the list. Following the SLUG rules, he should have posted it one
> the jobs page. Now I'm not picking on Paul. God only knows that Paul
> and I have had our differences, but that's normal, and I have nothing
> against him.

A dual standard can indeed be a problem. Perhaps a "slug-jobs" list
would address this? Paul?

> I'm simply pointing out that to some of us (Smitty and I NOT being the
> only ones) the SLUG bylaws are written in pencil.

They seem to be generally well enforced, aside from the above double
standard you mention.

> But the list isn't the only problem. Like you said, the list is a small
> problem. One of our members was recently told by the list administrator
> that he would unsubscribe him from SLUG after some statements that were
> made. Is that the role of a list admin? Frankly, I don't think so.
> I've see, and been apart of much nastier things than that, and while I
> fully expected to be removed from the list, I was not.

If someone repeated abuses the list it would be abhorrent (to me at least)
that the list admin not take some action to address the problem. Now,
abuse of this is arguably worse (against members 'net civil liberties,
anyway), but don't think there is a single list admin that is running
unchecked here.

A completely unmoderated list only leads to chaos.

> At least two of us have been invited to start our own LUG...some even
> begged us to leave SLUG. At least two people wrote to me offline,
> called me everything but white, and TOLD me to leave (it's been a while
> now).

I've never had this problem. For that matter, I've not found most of the
folks on the list to have this problem. Why do you think that this is?

(honestly, I'm not trying to bait here... saying anything more would be
stepping over the edge into flamewars and slug-politics).

> Given all of that, we decided this was the time to do it. But
> the idea is NOT to undermine SLUG, rather to enhance certain aspects we
> feel are lacking, without SLUG having to change the rules it so
> adamantly reminds us of. Like I said, I plan on attending SLUG meetings
> and contributing when I can, and if my help is wanted. If Brandon needs
> help running the meetings now that Gnorb and Bill Preece are busy in the
> evenings, I'll happily volunteer. But as for our forming our own LUG
> and having different policies, I see this as being a plus. If someone
> doesn't like what we're doing, they need not join us. However, we
> certainly invite all.
>
> Again, I know our choice isn't going to make everyone happy, and some
> will say what they will. But understand our goals are PRO LINUX, and
> NOT ANTI-SLUG.

For the vocal minority that is unhappy with the current SLUG policy,
your group does offer an alternative. I'm all for alternatives.

>From the SLUG website:
"Our purpose is to provide mutual support and assistance for Linux users
in the area, and to promote the use of Linux to others."

- Ian



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:34:49 EDT