A short list of things I want out of TLUG

[psema4]

(lol - sorry in advance, re _write too damned  much_)

On 4/22/05, Sy <sy1235-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Because I view the messages regarding organization, meeting topics,
> fundraising, group goals and whatnot as being a sign of a greater
> possibility, I would like to beg the audience for a -- ok, for
> realistically a good hour -- with this post/thread.  I'm nervous as
> hell posting like this, so please make criticism constructive so I can
> learn..

Welcome to the club.  :-)

> Now I know that the first thing a guy like me does when something
> important is being discussed is _write too damned much_, but all of
> this boils down to a very simple idea:  By expressing a short list of
> my needs, I can help everyone understand what I like and need as a
> member of the community.
> 
[... snip ...]
> In my ignorance I have to ask what the benefits of formal organization
> are.  Allow me to brainstorm a little, and do correct me when I'm
> wrong, although s:n may be better served by just your own short list
> if you understand the jist of things.
> 
> I think I understand some of it.. viewing things sortof like a
> "primative" society versus whatever..

This suggests to me a form of social chaos, in the mathematical sense.
 With f/loss and other "open concepts" (eg. the creative commons), and
communities such as LUG's, there appears to be an emergent
understanding in society.

The interference pattern generated between the beliefs of the FSF and
the OSTG was (and in my opinion, still is) the primary source of the
emergent common-thinking.  Fuel to the fire are the related phenomena
of open standards and "some rights reserved."

In this culture, "we can have our cake and eat it too" in many cases.

> There would be more organization towards the benefit of
> decision-making for the collective, for example.  A small community
> can make decisions amongst themselves, where a larger one would have
> difficulty reaching a concensus.  So for tlug to grow larger and still
> be able to make effective group decisions, structure should form..
> right?
> 
> Ok, but what decisions need to be made?
> 
> It seems appropriate to have some structure to be able to interact
> with the greater world, if only to have people appointed for the task
> of "face time" necessary for, say, interaction with larger
> corporations.  I don't know that a big company would be comfortable
> dealing with a random delegate who cannot speak on behalf of their
> peers.

I was stunned by your response to the "What is an administrator"
question.  You completely blew my "operating" cover.  For me, linux
and open source are not about the software or TCO.  It's about the
people.  It's about the freedom.

Face-time is a great description.  Networking (in the people sense ;-)
has forever been the secret to getting business done.

> So the structure would alleviate the need for wide-scale concensus,
> allowing for a sort of generally agreed-upon charter which the
> structure follows on behalf of members.  So in my example, we vote for
> people who do the "face time".  We do this because it's good for
> rubbing elbows with corporate entities.  We want to rub elbows.. well
> I would say that this brings various random benefits, like career
> opportunities or benefits to the greater enthusiast community.
> 
> So structure would help a larger society form which can operate
> without the need to have the large collective decisions.  The charter
> concept, when generally agreed upon, allows members to step away from
> the nitty gritty decisions and benefit without being bogged down by
> the constant pull for concensus.
> 
> Well, I'm not explaining it very well.. but we all understand some of
> the benefits for ourselves.. after all, we are a part of a society
> with traits that had to evolve along some of these lines.
> 
> --
> 
> In my opinion, I don't particularly care if structure exists or not,
> and generally speaking I wouldn't be aware of it.  I empathise with
> the lack of enthusiasm some have shared with the idea.  Why mess with
> a good thing, why bother with the effort, who let that guy be in
> charge, dude where's my car.
> 
> The socialness will exist outside of the structure.  It's an
> inevitability.  I don't think we lose out on that underculture because
> of a structure.
> 
> The question is, is there a greater value in the various designs?
> 
> Frankly, I'm shocked there isn't a little corporation floating amongst
> you.  It's not like computers are new.  It's not like you're new to
> computers.  Hell, some of you have been playing with this crap for
> longer than I've been eating solid food!  I figured it was logical for
> a tlug to have some significant firepower in its arsenal.

Some significant firepower is here indeed.  I've seen some major
"weapons" light up with ideas.  The community runs a self-diagnostic
on the thought, issue, concept, or whatever, and everyone files it
away.  It's sort of a "communal tinkering" with information.

Part of the problem behind corporate involvement is communication and
appearance.  It's taken (and still requires) a long time before main
stream business truly embraces open source.  ("long" is relative here.
 It takes a while to change the way the world thinks.)

Appearance looks to be an unfortunate by-product of mendacity. 
(PegaSoft has some information on this here: 
http://www.pegasoft.ca/resources/Linux_Startup/book.html  Read it last
week and was suprised once again at "the firepower" available through
TLUG.  Not complete, but a good read I thought.)

Probably, there exists more than a few companies don't want to
"advertise the fact" that open source is the way to go.  Might prove
detrimental in internal or b2b politics.

There are lots of folks out there who didn't understand open source
last year.  It's an evolutionary thing.  As the "common understanding"
spreads, younger generations will carry it with them into the
corporate world and carry it up the ladder.

That's gunna take a while, especially here in North America where
mendacity has held sway for quite a while.  Other countries are
figuring it out.

As a term for defining software, "open source" is great.  It was a
marketing concept that worked like a charm.  Maybe a little too good
though.

F/loss (and variations eg. foss) are good for broadening the
perspective to include the concept of freedom, but still fall, I
think, somewhat short.  Free/Libre and Open Source Software.  It's
still about software.

The way I look at it is more along the lines of f/los or Free/Libre
and Open Society.

Such concepts are slowing making it into the minds of business,
government, and the general public thanks to the internet, media,
supportive businesses and volunteers.  (It's just taking forever.)

Given the growth statistics over the lifetime of the GNU project and
Linux, it certainly appears that people are "getting it"  As more
people do, additional fields and community generators are naturally
appearing.  [a hardly exhastive list of eg's (and in no particular
order.  ;-)  FSF, OSTG, Creative Commons, LUG's, Groklaw, Google...]

> We appear to have some elders looking to gel things together for
> future benefit.  I don't see much of a problem with trying.  The
> question should now be.. how?
> 
> My gut tells me that the best thing to do is look at the models which
> others have used.  My brain tells me to learn from others and adapt
> their models to our needs.  What I really want to do is kidnap some
> organizers from other groups..  =)

lol at the kidnapping.  Asking them might be a good idea.  The rest
I'd agree with.

> That's the kind of work that's suited for the various elders.  If you
> all want to step down and leave a structure in your place, then the
> structure needs to do the job right.
> 
> --
> 
> For the rest of us.  I propose something kinda simple.  In no order,
> what are the five most selfish things you want out of a "Toronto Linux
> User Group", and what are their dependancies?  Again, all you should
> really care about in the greater politics of all of this is your
> selfish short list.  I'll begin with mine:
> 
> 1) To be introduced to new software and methods.
> 2) To spend some time out of the house, breathing fresh air and
> meeting interesting new people.
> 3) To be motivated and enlightened by wiser people.
> 4) To make friends such that I may one day could lean on them for
> technical advice and support.
> 5) To give back to society at large.

[... snip ...]

It's hard to follow your list and analysis of the 5 items.  As with
the system administrator thread, you've managed to hit the nail on the
head.  (At least for me.)

> 5) This is where a more structured group comes in handy.  I can give a
> little by helping a random newbie.  I can give a lot by aligning
> myself with a cool project.  Have you ever gotten the feeling that you
> can do more?  It keeps me up at night sometimes.  =/  One thing I need
> is to see some semblance of written structure from which more
> Enlightened plotting and planning can come.

Enlightened plotting.  Where does TLUG want to go today?

> $ apt-get install tlug-sy
> 
> error: cannot open lock file //var/lib/rpm/RPMLOCK in exclusive mode
> error: cannot open Packages database in
> E: could not open RPM database

Btw, you should prolly fix your apt-get.  ;-)  Nice sig.

-- 
- SGE
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml