[wplug-plan] Re: [wplug] Bylaws

Rick Smith rick at rbsmith.com
Wed Feb 14 04:50:57 EST 2001


I second this.  (now, let's see, I include all previous remarks and
press send.  Easy!  Oh, wait, there's more I want to say)

I'll put my support behind the HOCSIG (herd of cats special interest
group).  The premise being gather and have fun, maybe make a contribution,
and leave.

That is, I'm for "life serving" systems instead of life spent serving
serving systems.  I was attracted to Alex and Jeremy's wplug because of
this focus.

For a presentation of life serving vs life spent serving, I like
http://www.psncc.org/MBRmad99.htm

So how can the umbrella of wplug be structured to be life serving? 
I hear there are people who are interested in different things,
so let's seek structure which accomodates people who are interested
in different things.  Keep the umbrella structure light and serving.

How might that look?  Here's a possibility:

  Rules of WPLUG:
  on plan list, propose a SIG (special interest group).  This serves to
  manage the SIG name space and flush out the nature of the SIG relative
  to other SIGs going on.  Basically it is not about approve or reject,
  but giving feedback out perceived contribution.  There is no plan group,
  just a plan list.

  The announcelist is for presentation of 'call for interest' in
  the SIG, both organization (if the SIG is based on open structure)
  and participation.
  
  The basic infrastructure given to a SIG is a mail list, and a link on
  the home page.  The SIG folks are autonomous as far as adopting RR or
  AJR (Alex and Jeremy's rule of order).  This is so people favoring
  process can cluster and hone processes which work for them, and people
  favoring beer can cluster and imbibe.

  If a SIG seems to be lacking in activity for 193.2332 days, then
  the garbage collection process is activated, and the mailing list
  and web pages go into /dev/null.

Now, if you look at this and think "GAK!" then try to think "How does
this not serve me?" and talk about that.  It's easier to come up with
something that serves everybody when it is clear why something doesn't
serve someone well.

When reading about chairs, vice-chairs, boards (and tables?) I feel
discouraged because I'm wanting the direction of the group to be "Linux
is cool" and it's not clear to me how having a small group of people
manage the definition of cool helps.

When reading about organizational meetings to serve the membership, I
feel annoyed, because I'm wanting to contribute to Linux is cool, and
don't have the need to be a member of a group to do it.  I do support
a SIG for people who are wanting to belong to something which has
membership.  Or the HOCSIG for folks like me who want to be with a group
of people who want to chat Linux.

So what serves me is a lightweight structure which allows heavyweight
structures underneath, or a heavyweight structure (as I realize that
people who are wanting to declare their belonging to something might
like to claim WPLUG instead of WPLUG-LINUX-ADVOCACY-SIG) which has
the HOCSIG permantly grandfathered into the bylaws as something that can
never have rules applied to it. 

Ever yours in version control theory (with circles and arrows),
Rick

On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 12:38:24AM -0500, Mark the Dude altered the
path of existence, injecting  wisdom and clarity into conversation with:
> Perhaps a large number of naked penguins should be brought into each meeting.
> >snip< (otherwise known as 44) >snip< uniformly un-unique >snip<
> said uoles are lost or >snip< Let's just plan, >snip<
> so obviously they would be planly and planstakingly wasted.
> 
> Yours in planning,
> Mark (the plan) Dude



More information about the wplug-plan mailing list