[Ubuntu-US-CA] User Group Link

Larry Cafiero larry.cafiero at gmail.com
Wed Jul 15 17:21:42 UTC 2009


"On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Nathan Haines <nhaines at ubuntu.com> wrote
in response to Paul Reiber:
On Tue, 2009-07-14 at 15:42 -0700, Paul Reiber wrote:
>> hrm... translation: "no, Grant (and everyone else)... 'cause I want it
>>this other way"

>I think Neal adequate described the reasoning behind the removal of the
link, and he did so at Grant's insistence."

I don't think this addresses what Paul's talking about, which seems to be a
recurring problem with this thread when either Nathan or Neil (or both)
respond -- the constant disconnect and redirection that happens in what
appears to be an attempt at grinding things to a halt over a personality
conflict (i.e., Grant proposed it, so we don't want to do it).

Ludicrous arguments like this bear me out:

Bill Kendrick wrote:
> Is the giant LUG list over at Linux Online (linux.org) not sufficient?
> (One nice thing about it, is that it seems to automatically ping groups
> every year, to make sure information is kept up-to-date.  Though, of
course,
> I'm not sure how may LUGs _do_ keep their stuff up-to-date there.)
>

And Nathan replies:
"It's a perfect example of the difficulty of the problem.  Cerritos LUG,
which would have been the perfect one for me location-wise, has been
dead for years--yet is still there."

Perfect example? Are you kidding me? <sarcasm>Oh, wait. I get your point,
Nathan: If I find a LUG in my area that's no longer active, I'm going to
immediately just give up on participating in the California LoCo. Shoot, I'm
just going to bag the whole Linux thing and go back to using Windows. Hey,
thanks for clearing that up.</sarcasm>

The fact of the matter is, you're not going to find a perfect LUG list, and
to base your argument on this, ahem, "fact" borders on ridiculous.

$NEW_UBUNTU_USER and $LOCO_PARTICIPANT will find the one that's
next-closest, if s/he so desires. The point here is that you go with the
best link you can find to put on your page. Is it going to have inactive
groups on it? Count on it. Is that a reason to exclude it? Absolutely not.

Then ask yourself this: What does it say about this group that spends so
much time on a simple issue that could have easily been resolved with a
simple compromise?

And further, what am I -- as a LUG leader -- supposed to tell people who
attend our meetings and ask about the California LoCo? Do I give them a
caveat based on my experience -- "Well, the community doesn't have a
decision-making mechanism as such, but decides issues by having a couple of
uncompromising people grind down opposition to what they want to do (or what
they don't want to do) until it dies away" -- or do I just point them in the
direction of the LoCo and let them find out for themselves?

(Helpful hint: This is NOT how you keep members active. Just sayin'.)

This is just one simple link on a page or series of pages, folks. A simple,
inauspicious link which, if it's on a wiki, can just be the word "here" at
the end of a sentence like, "To see a list of Linux User Groups in your
area, click here."

I have an idea: Let's try acting our respective ages going forward and let's
bring some real arguments or debate in response.

Larry Cafiero
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-us-ca/attachments/20090715/e1063987/attachment.html>


More information about the Ubuntu-us-ca mailing list