[wplug-plan] something to consider for the future

[David Ostroske]

On 7/17/06, Bill Moran <wmoran at potentialtech.com> wrote:
> In response to Patrick Wagstrom <pwagstro at andrew.cmu.edu>:
[...]
> > I saw that Pittsburgh Technology Council is hosting Summer Slam V[1]
> > which is a gathering of Pittsburgh user groups, but you'll notice that
> > WPLUG isn't included - even though groups like PittJUG, Pgh.Net and
> > PghOUG are.  Something tells me we should let them know we exist.  Any
> > volunteers?

Thanks for bringing this up, Patrick. I'm forwarding this on to the PR
folks. Nothing official yet. But it makes sense to send out a
heads-up.

PR folks, do any of you have any insight on this? (If you can, please
get on wplug-plan and respond!)

> I used to know who the person was who coordinated these kinds of events.
> I'll check through my contact information when I get home this evening.

All I can do is cheer you on, Bill.

> While I'm not opposed to PTC involvement, note that they can be a bit
> overbearing.  pgh.net and PittJUG are basically sponsored by the PTC,
> so they (more or less) own those UG.  I'm not familiar with PghOUG.  I
> believe that there is a strong cultural divide between WPLUG culture
> and PTC culture.  I don't believe this is insurmountable, just
> challenging.

I've heard about this gap, too. Dave Tessitor has mentioned it in the
past, and he's always advocated keeping independent from the PTC.
Instinctively, I think he's right, though that doesn't mean we
couldn't coordinate with them.

> This (to me) is exactly the kind of thing that falls under the PR
> committee's charter: coordinating with other groups.  The committee
> is pretty new, and they still haven't even met, but this demonstrates
> (to me) that having such a committee make sense.

Absolutely. It would be a great sign to see what they can do, even
without a preliminary meeting. But that's my opinion.

-- 
David Ostroske <eksortso at gmail.com>

P.S. I'm personally starting to feel straitjacketed by the
committee/meeting jargon, but not the more dynamic concepts underlying
them.