Re: LUCI: 7/23/2002 meeting *cancelled*

[mike808@users.sourceforge.net]

> ... I feel this worthy of a small bit of discussion. ...
> <ISSUE>
> Why would the meeting need be cancelled? Are there no
> others that would be willing to take up the reins?

Apparently not. I didn't see a message from anyone after Steve's posting 
volunteering to do exactly what you suggest.

> Rather than asking for volunteers, Steve, as you've
> done in the past, why did you eliminate the
> possibility of having a meeting at all last month with
> your announcement?

Huh? If someone posted a "Hey, can I give a talk on X instead?" that doesn't 
mean it couldn't have happened.

I suspect, however, that part of the deal with Steve cancelling, is that he HAD 
NOT received any offers to run the meeting, and by holding the meetings at the 
museum, *they* require some notice as to whether or not the building needs to 
remain accessible for potential attendees. So, it's not just Steve making it up 
as he goes along here. There are certain restrictions and rules and courtesy 
one must follow to use other people's resources (i.e. the museum, or someone's 
office), no matter how noble your cause or intent. It's the golden rule. He who 
has the gold gets to make the rules.

Do I think that's the best system for running things? Maybe not.
But it's the one we have.

> I am sure if you would've
> approached this differently and asked if anyone would
> volunteer a subject and run the meeting (you know
> Erich will make sure the facilities are in order).

How is that different from Steve's *standing invitation* for *anyone else* to 
give a presentation?

> This
> past month, there have been some IPCHAINS and WIRELESS
> networking issues that have been discussed on the mail
> list, playing with Remote Admin stuff, Security stuff,
> distro stuff, whatever - one of those folks could've
> donated a little time to discuss what they did to
> resolve their issue. 

But, they didn't. I don't see how that's Steve's fault.
Maybe you should do some more cheerleading to those folks and *ask* them to 
volunteer a presentation or two, then, if you feel that strongly about it.

> But, you didn't even ask... I do know I felt a bit miffed that
> you simply called the meeting off without a discussion
> - as if there wouldn't be other options. 

I guess you forgot the part about anyone jumping in an announcing that they 
will give a presentation before Steve's last minute notice to warn people that 
driving an hour to Springfield will be a waste of their time - since nobody 
else has spoken up to give a presentation.

I'm not saying Steve has all the right answers. But the problem isn't that 
Steve gave us a heads up on there not being a meeting, but that there's a lack 
of *other* volunteers to run a meeting. Just because you *want* a meeting 
doesn't mean that people will just jump at the chance to meet *your* 
expectations.

If you want to give a meeting presentation, jump up and say so. I'm sure Steve 
will do his part and help the presenter make sure that it "happens". But 
without any other volunteers, Steve is perfectly within his rights to stand up 
and say "I'm not going to do the meeting this month, and I'm telling you and 
the museum this with as much advance notice as I can give".

Perhaps Steve should post a standard "Presenters should send notice by XYZ" to 
help make that clearer when he makes a call like that on a meeting.

I know Joe meant this constructively, and I hope my comments are as 
constructive. Maybe Joe can lead a meeting or two and we can discuss the 
meeting schedule and presentation scheduling process?
I understand that Joe think this is something that needs some focus and better 
definition and, dare I say it, formality.

While there is much to be said for a "Happy Go Lucky" and "Organizationally 
Challenged" approach to things, there can just as easily be GreatThings(tm) 
accomplished by other methods as well.

Mike808/

---------------------------------------------
http://www.valuenet.net



-
To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo@luci.org with
"unsubscribe luci-discuss" in the body.