[Gllug] My response to Ivan's comments made at the recent GLLUG meeting.

[Mike Brodbelt]

On Sun, 2002-09-15 at 23:24, Colin Murphy wrote:
> At the last GLLUG meeting on Saturday 14th, Ivan took the opportunity to 
> express his views and concerns with the group.  Some of those concerns 
> were addressed directly to me.  This is my reply.  The bulk of the email 
> is preamble, for those that were at the meeting, they may want to cut to 
> the chase and scroll two thirds of the way down.
> 
> GLLUG has a very loose organisational structure - this is my fault.  I 
> accepted the responsibility for maintaining the group when the original 
> organiser stood down to work abroad.  This was so long ago that I can't 
> even remember his name.  If anyone can remind me, please do so.

Alec Clews. The fact I can remember that probably dates me somewhat, but
still.....

> There have been many that have offered their assistance and understanding, 
> helping with whatever needed to be done to keep the meetings running, 
> those that seemed to have filled this role the longest include John 
> Southern, Steve Cobrin, Richard Cohen and Ivan A.  The five of us form the 
> nearest thing your group has to a committee.

And the five of you are due a vote of thanks from all of us who take
advantage of your efforts. I've certainly enjoyed the GLLUG events I've
been to.

> 2a). Catering for the needs of MY group ( I say 'MY' group because it is 
> the way that I perceive the group to be.) - We need a room with theatre 
> style seating for the formal lectures 

> 3).An area for people to chat in - hopefully out of earshot of the formal 
> lecture.

Both the above are vital, IMHO.
 
> GND had enough rooms for all three of these needs.  It also had desks and 
> sensible chairs to use computer equipment with.  We had access to 
> monitors, so users only had to bring their boxes if they wanted to set up 
> a machine.  They also had a large display for the presentations and gave 
> us free coffee and nibbles.  They were not central, but had good public 
> transport.  They had excellent parking.  There was no fixed end time - 
> within reason.

GND was a vey good venue - the main problem with it was the lack of
air-conditioning. It did get truly intolerable with ~50 people in a
small room in the summer.
 
> UCL had desks and chairs, but was only one room - though the corridor got 
> pressed into service.  It could not offer us monitors, so people wanting 
> to bring something practical had to bring their own display.  It did have 
> a projection screen, but we had to rely on Simon and Richard to bring a 
> digital projector.  It was central but had limited parking facilities.  It 
> also had a fixed end time.

UCL was problematic because it was effectively impossible to chat
without disturbing the talks. I think it's vital that people not
interested in any particular talk can chat to other GLLUG'ers without
disturbing those who want to listen to the talk in question.
 
> There is a GLLUG member 
> still working at CFC and I understand that we are still welcome back 
> there.  I have had no contact with CFC since John left, I have always 
> thought of the contact now at CFC as Ivan's contact.  Some latittude with 
> the end time.

CFC was fairly good, IMO certainly better than UCL.
 
> Westminster University has two lecture theatres with the use of on site 
> presentation equipment.

I've contrived to miss all but one of the Westminster meetings, so can't
really comment.

> I have never relied on the continued use of a single venue.  Even from the 
> GND days, I would look for other likely venues with which to share the 
> burden of the meetings.  In the early days I had little success in finding 
> venues available for free, but I have had more success recently with 
> offers from companies like Learning Tree International and Sony (UK).

The Learning Tree premises near Euston would be close to ideal, if you
could get them.
 
> This was the February meeting then, the  first meeting that Ivan attended 
> at this venue.  Afterwards, Ivan  did say to me that he was concerned 
> about the authenticity of Sean's offer for us to use the venue.  These 
> concerns seemed to revolve around the patronage to groups like ours, and 
> his belief that there were some kickbacks for the University or for Sean 
> himself.  I am unclear of the exact details of Ivans's concerns, perhaps 
> he will be good enough to post full details.

What kickbacks there may or may not be are possible immaterial, anyway.
I do feel it's important for GLLUG to maintain its independence from any
outside interests, and for it to be true to its raison d'etre as a LUG,
but beyond that, it seems sensible for the organisers to get whatever
venue they think best. If GLLUG was charging for membership, my opinion
would be different, but as there are no such charges, anything the venue
gets out of it seems to be something of a moot point. These days, there
may even be some kudos to be has from hosting a LUG.
 
> Sean's offer seemed genuine  enough to me.  The only thing he wanted was 
> for the meeting to happen on a more regular basis.  This was so he had 
> some chance to also invite students and tutors from the University.

While this may represent a vested interest on Sean's part, it seems to
me like a good suggestion anyway, and I've no objection to Sean getting
something out of it from his perspective. We all get something out of
Linux - why shouldn't the Uni of Westminster gain something from hosting
the meetings?
 
> GLLUG meetings have traditionally been arranged in a very ad hoc fashion.  
> We would only be able to confirm the date of a meeting once Ivan had 
> confirmed the availability of his speakers and of the venue.  Sometimes 
> this left very little time for the announcements of the meeting to be 
> made.  This was often a point of concern and complaint, pointed in my 
> direction.

There have been several meetings I have missed, that I could perhaps
have made had I had sufficient advance notice. Sometimes, I found out
about meetings only a couple of days ahead of time, from the mailing
list. This is not a good thing, doubly so for newbies who aren't on the
list.
 
> It was clear that there would be no middle ground on this issue.  From 
> those that have heard him at previous GLLUG meetings,  you will be all too 
> aware that if Ivan has an opinion, you can either agree with it or listen 
> to it again.

:-)

> So, after the February meeting we waited on Ivan to announce the date of 
> the next meeting.
> 
> And we waited.

FWIW, I think that if GLLUG is to move forward, regular meetings are a
necessity.

<snip>

> At the meeting Ivan made two comments that came as a great shock to me.
> 
> 1). Ivan said that by using Westminster University we would be dumbing down 
> the group.  Now, I have been of the opinion that it has been my role and 
> responsibility to dumb down the group.

I think "dumbing down" is the wrong approach, but I do think it's clear
that GLLUG has to cater for advanced users and newbies. It's part of our
job to induct new people, and get them interested. That said, if GLLUG
became newbie focused to the degree where advanced topics were rare, I'd
attend less, and I dare say others would also. It's important that
enough advanced content is retained to keep the interest of the advanced
users, as these are the people that can offer valuable advice to the
newbies at meetings.

> I honestly wish that 
> someone had taken me aside and told me, along with absolutely everyone 
> else in the group, that our efforts to help all Linux users was not 
> welcome.  Better to have let me know in a moment aside than let me down 
> with such a bump anyhow.

Speaking for myself, I've always thought that you did a pretty good job
steering a difficult ship.
 
> Ivans accusations were left without any further explaination or evidence.  
> Maybe Ivan would like to present both of these to the mailing list.  For 
> the moment, I can only play the dangerous game of speculation.  

I can make no comment on this, beyons the obvious, which is that any
accusation, once leveled, should be substantiated or retracted promptly.
Otherwise, these things have a tendency to fester, to the detriment of
all concerned.

> There is one personal gain that I get out of this 'deal', one that I value 
> very much.  I can now tell people when the next meeting is when they ask - 
> and it is ME that they ask!

The importance of this should not be underestimated.
 
> The group needs to discuss the points which have been raised at this 
> meeting.
> 
> 1). Will GLLUG be dumbed down by the input of Westminster University?

This can only be decided by the GLLUG members themselves. A balance
needs to be found.
 
> 1a). Is this a bad thing?

Yes, if it goes too far. Newbies need to be catered for, but, IMO,
should not dominate proceedings.
 
> 4). Do you need someone else on the committee to help with the organisation 
> now that I have stood down, completely?  

I'm sad to hear it.

Mike.


-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug