Linux World / Network World 2006

[Evan Leibovitch]

billt-lxSQFCZeNF4 at public.gmane.org wrote:

>The funny thing is that Evan is complaiing about the going ons of the 2003 Linux World, the one he and Matt were in charge of under CLUE, and the one that was Shanghied by these consultants.
>  
>
Well, I do admit that CLUE did the paperwork for the TLUG booth then. I 
also recall that I was involved with multiple booths that year; I guess 
it was too much to ask to let TLUG group operate a booth without parenting.

>1) Plum Communications wishes GTALUG to make available to a third party the snail mail addresses of its members for the purposes of sending advertising,
>  
>
Non-issue, since as was correctly stated this violates privacy issues; 
they can't make you break the law. The best way to handle this is to 
allow an opt-in "mail me stuff" option for members, but that's not a 
tradeshow matter.

This is not a deal breaker for PLUM. They just want to do the most 
possible to get TLUG members out to the show.

>2) Plum communications requires us to cancel any educational program (which means the UofT and NewTlug meetings) prior too and after LinuxWorld. The time period around it would be 3 TLUG meetings, and 4 NewTlug meetings [...skip...] [this clause is] considered non-negotiable, since these meetings are the primary reason this groups exist and cancelling one quarter of the annual meetings is ridiculous.
>
The #2 objection given by William wasn't this one, it was the issue that 
prohibited individual members from promoting their work or business. 
Since that issue has now been appropriately deconstructed, let's move on 
to this new one.

This complaint is the result of a misinterpretation of two clauses in 
the criteria for non-profit orgs wanting booths.

One clause states:

"You may not promote any other event(s) deemed competitive to LinuxWorld 
or NetworkWorld events"

A quick email or phone call would have clarified whether a LUG meeting 
is "deemed competitive to LinuxWorld". Has such clarification been 
obtained? I think it already has -- see below.

The other clause states:

"We request that the association does not hold a Linux specific or 
network technology specific education event featuring any of the 
confirmed presenters at LWNW 30 days prior and 30 days post the LWNW 
2006 event"

That just means that you can't have any of the LinuxWorld conference 
speakers as presenters for a month before or after the show. It doesn't 
prohibit meetings. Even so, the unique use here of "we request" 
indicates that this is not a firm demand, and that the invitation of 
specific speakers is probably negotiable.

To further demonstrate the foolishness of interpreting these clauses to 
mean "cancelling LUG meetings", let's go back to Colin's original 
message that started this thread:

>One of the questions that the show organizers have raised can be boiled down to "What about shifting the April GTALUG and NewTLUG meetings to the show?". The show organizers would be happy to supply some free evening conference rooms, and provide some AV equipment.
>
It doesn't sound to me at all as if Plum has a problem with LUG meetings 
or considers them competitive. They even want to host some!

Problem solved. Let's hear the next objection.

- Evan

PS: I have the actual document from Plum that's causing all the fuss at 
GTALUG, which is how I can use exact quotes above. I was going to attach 
the document to this email, but figured that not everyone wants 500K 
extra in their mailbox for a simple four-page PDF document of limited 
interest. Anyone who wants a copy is welcome to email me and ask for it.

--
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