COSIG, Ubuntu SIG, or maybe both...

[VirginSnow at vfemail.net]

> Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 20:30:24 -0400
> From: "Arc Riley" <arcriley at gmail.com>
> Cc: gnhlug-discuss at mail.gnhlug.org

> We're not misunderstanding anything, we're talking about two entirely
> separate groups;

That's what it's begining to sound like.

> I am not at all interested in your outreach group idea,

At the LoCo meeting on 6/14, you did seem excited about outreach.
Perhaps I mistook your enthusiasm.  I'll give you the benefit of the
doubt.  Besides, opting not to be an advocate is your perogative.

> IFSA has survived and thrived because a large number (possibly a majority)
> of the people doing much of the work are self proclaimed non-geeks.  Of

Just curious about this claim.  Is this because having "non-geeks"
(which, BTW, I don't consider to be a derogatory term) increases the
number of people involved in the movement?

> I disagree, quite strongly, with that idea.  There are people in
> > GNHLUG who want to promote Linux.  Unfortunately, they're
> > geographically quite spread out.
> 
> 
> That's something this mailing list can be used for.  If you want to do
> something, and don't have enough people, post "hey, I want to table at X
> location/coneference, will anyone do it with me?"

I believe the -discuss list would be an insufficient tool for this
task.  Indeed, I've tried it before.  So has Matthew Craig.
Theoretically, hypothetically speaking, anything--even chapter or
board meetings--could be conducted on a mailing list.  But these are
simple impracticalities.

> Forming a SIG to have regular activism/outreach meetings is not going to
> suddenly make people more interested in doing those things.

This is true, but only partially so.  Having a name, structure, and
official status in GNHLUG would make the SIG more visible.  It's a
"thing" which people can "name".  (That's part of the reason I have no
name, myself--so people are less inclined to see me as being a
separate, individual, person.)

Visibility and popularity aside, a SIG *would* serve to pull together
what are now widely scattered hopes and ideas into a cohesive, acting,
body.  It's a matter of critical mass.  You're familiar with Critical
Mass. ;)

> Even if you strongly feel the need for an outreach SIG, it's not like a "new
> SIG" slot has opened up and there's a competition over it.

This is begining to sound like a proposal for *two* new SIGs: one for
staging advocacy activities, and another for new users to pal-around
and feel community.

> Go do it.  Stop disrupting the Ubuntu SIG discussion.

Woah, Arc, take a deep breath.  Try and look at this from my
perspective.

I got involved with the LoCo for the express purpose of advocacy.  You
got involved with it for your own--now apparently different--reasons.
At the GNHLUG BBQ, I suggested the "Advocacy SIG" idea as a response
to conflict occuring within the LoCo.  Nikki, apparently
misinterpreting my idea, came up with the Ubuntu SIG idea, which you
seem to have latched onto and run away with.  Now put my shoes on for
a moment.  From my perspective, it's you that's hijacking the
"Advocacy SIG" idea.

To be fair, I don't think either of us is "disrupting" the other.  I
think we are fans of two different ideas which just happen to be so
similar that they've hitherto gotten confused: You want to create a
community of new users.  I want to create new users.

Would you agree, then, that we are talking about creating two
different SIGs?  If so, what then would be the advantages/drawbacks to
splitting into two separate SIGs?  Would the board approve two new
SIGs?  What's black and white and red all over?