[wplug] [Plan?] Re: Rivalry, Location and Volunteers -- WAS: (no subject)

[Bryan J. Smith]

[ Responses broken into 2 parts.  BTW, being an "old dog Internet
guy" ('80s), I tend to approach SMTP like I did NNTP, changing subject
as necessary, relying on Message-ID threading (which both SMTP and NNTP
do), etc...  Now only if my Blackberry and GMail were completely
compliant. ;-]

1) Regarding Rivalry ...

On Tue, 2007-07-24 at 19:27 -0700, kabel wrote: 
> Bickering about CMU/non-CMU/Pitt/whatever-else (and trying to ALWAYS have the
> last word) isn't exactly the best thing for the group's image and is more
> than a little counterproductive.

It feeds the "rival" non-sense.  In reality, engineers, technologists
and technicians should have 0 interest in that -- at least off of a
field or other competition.

On Tue, 2007-07-24 at 15:52 -0400, Teodorski, Chris wrote:
> Bill,
> I think the problem is not that the image is slanted this way or that.
> I think the problem is that the image is slanted.

Images will always be slanted.  Some slants are unintentional, but still
caused by the group.  Other slants are not actual, but interpreted by
others.  You can't please everyone, you can try your best, but you're
not going to.

Red Hat was slammed years ago for being GNOME-centric.  Red Hat not only
did not deny it, but flat out stated that they just lacked enough KDE
developers on staff.  Now they've added a few (especially those on
Fedora), but they will always have an unintentional GNOME bias that's
unlikely to change (and some of that can be explained by the original
GNOME efforts after KDE when Qt wasn't "free[dom]").

You can only do your best to address as many people as you can, but some
will never be satisfied.  And then others still will see difference even
when every effort is made.  Elementary sigma statistics ...
 A) Focusing on one (1) detail will satisfy 2/3rds
 B) Focusing on two (2) details will satisfy over 96%
 C) Focusing on three (3) details will satisfy over 99%

That's pretty much universal (even if not exact) on many things ...
- Vi, Emacs, Joe and others ...
- GNOME, KDE, XFCE and others ...
- Consumers, Professionals, Developers and others ...

> We aren't a beginner's organization and we aren't an expert's
> organization.

I've rarely seen a LUG that is.

> We are a user group that is open to all levels of experience and 
> somehow we need to get that message out.

But how?  A PR committee clearly helps, I agree with others.  That's
largely because ...
 A) You pool your resources in a single effort
 B) You put the relevant people on efforts where they are best
 C) You avoid duplicate efforts and introductions (one contact)

> Maybe we are focusing our advertising attention on too many places
> that are "safe" (for lack of a better term).  Maybe we just need to
> branch out, maybe even expand our offerings, for example -- at a
> meeting offer 3 talks, one at the basic level, one intermediate, and
> one experienced.   (I know that's easier said than done).

Yes, you have to be aware that it takes _people_.  ;)

Now you've gone from planning three (3) presentations ahead for the next
three (3) months to nine (9) presentations for the next three (3)
months.  How long can you drive that?  ;)

And what about "developers"?  Not just "IT"?  ;)

> As I type this, I realize that I'm quickly turning off-topic and
> heading to things that should best be discussed on -plan.

Agreed, although I'm just as guilty.

> Crawling back into the shadows,

Too late.  I now nominate you for PR committee chair!


2) Regarding Location and Volunteers ...

On Tue, 2007-07-24 at 19:27 -0700, kabel wrote: 
> Honestly, though, why not have meetings or events at alternate locations?
> Maybe one Saturday, those of us in the North Hills could host an event, and a
> few weeks later, the city folks could do something, or people in the South
> Hills.  Just because it's one group doesn't mean it has to be one site.  If
> not everyone can make it, so what?  It gives people a chance to be more
> involved..
> Flexible... portable.. hmm...

On Wed, 2007-07-25 at 09:29 -0400, Bill Moran wrote:
> I think that's a _great_ idea, and you're not the first to suggest it.
> It will occur when someone takes the time to do it.  Right now we have
> Ted, who faithfully gets us rooms at CMU whenever we need them, and Beth
> Lynn, who has secured the park for the WPLUG picnic.
> If you, or anyone else, has the ability to reserve space and would like
> to do so for a meeting, please volunteer on the plan list.
> Personally, I've done a fair amount of looking around and I don't have
> any space out my way (Monroeville area) that I can reserve that's large
> enough for a WPLUG meeting.

The "critical mass" is three (3), 3 guaranteed volunteers for any event.
Elementary sigma statistics apply ...
 A) One (1) person will show up around 2/3rds of the time
 B) At least one (1) of two (2) people over 96% of the time
 C) At least one (1) of three (3) people over 99% of the time

That's the "rule of thumb" I've always used.  If you've got 3
"regulars," you're good.


-- 
Bryan J. Smith         Professional, Technical Annoyance
mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org   http://thebs413.blogspot.com
--------------------------------------------------------
        Fission Power:  An Inconvenient Solution