On 2003-11-28 08:32:49 +0000 adam@thebowery.co.uk wrote:
So why is there no campaign to change the name of all Linux user groups?
Because I don't care about them as much. Things are still worth doing even if I can't do everything at once.
Other groups don't seem to have this "problem" so I don't think it can be related to the name.
Of other "nearby" groups, there are two that I'd say are prospering and both tend to talk about applications more than system. There are two that I think are struggling and one of those is really just doing installs at every meeting. The other struggler doesn't seem to have met for some time. Most are in a similar "holding pattern" to ALUG.
I also figure that the reason we tend to dwell on kernels and drivers etc. is that the biggest problems people get is on their first install when trying to get things setup (hell, I am having lots of "fun" with hardware right now!).
Is there something we can do to avoid continually re-solving this same problem?
I don't really see what changing a name and losing recognition [...]
I feel that we are not recognised by most and those who do recognise it are as likely to be put off as encouraged.
One thread does not make a trend, although I was quite happy to see the (two?) music threads after about a month of mostly low-level things. The list traffic doesn't really reflect what happens at meetings. It would have been nice to see some of the discussions from the list carry over to the meeting, but most people from the list aren't at the meeting. What do people want from the meetings?
Something unsettled me about the last meeting. I wish I could identify exactly what it was. The basic organisation seems pretty sound now, thanks mostly to those who have been scheduling meetings over the last year, but what attracts people to go to meetings? It's obvious if you have some piece of broken kit to take along, but what else? At the last meeting, I heard the early part of Paul's explanations, which seemed interesting, but something distracted me, which I guess will happen when it's a free for all.
Yes, I'm probably being provocative with the name change suggestion and projecting some of my concerns onto it. When faced with something ill-defined, it's hard to be specific.
I want the lurkers to speak up. We have 250 addresses getting copies of this. Even if we assume that all the meeting venues get different people (definitely untrue IMO), that means we only see about three dozen of them to talk with. How do we get the other seven-eighths involved? Do we spend too long grubbing around at the techie level? Is Laurie right that anyone who manages to install it necessarily tends to become techie? Is Syd right that more frequent meetings in each place will build numbers? Do we need to offer some compelling reasons to attend? Should we go further and effectively split the group geographically? Can we use Graham's comment about "being different" somehow more? Where did the mag I took to the last Norwich meeting go? Will the sky stay blue?