[Lincs] Lincoln LUG: launch of new LUG

[chris at majicsoft.co.uk]

Quoting Philip Newborough <corenominal at corenominal.org>:

> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 3:55 PM,  <chris at majicsoft.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Quoting Philip Newborough <corenominal at corenominal.org>:
>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 12:42 PM, chris at majicsoft.co.uk
>>> <chris at majicsoft.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I am saddened to hear a new member come along with good intentions of
>>>> re-invigorating the LUG, then turn about face and setup a localized lug,
>>>> something that's been discussed in the past, and universally agreed that
>>>> it
>>>> would do more harm than god to the lug at large.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Please quantify this statement. Can you point in the direction of any
>>> logs and or mailing list discussions where this was "universally
>>> agreed". Personally, I cannot remember ever agreeing to this.
>>>
>>>  -- Philip
>>
>> http://www.ricey.co.uk/llugforum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6
>>
>> I'm sure if there's an archive of the mailing list discussions, Mr Baker
>> could point you in their direction. I'll have a look in my llug emails when
>> I get home and can look in my archive, but I suspect all the emails I have
>> from more than three years ago will have been wiped.
>>
>> So far this has come up for discussion, and as the forum was set up as a
>> more familiar method of discussion, I see no reason for it to be ignored.
>> Have you or Becky signed up to share your opinions there yet?
>>
>> Chris
>>
>
> Thank you. Unfortunately, I could not read the discussion as "The
> board requires you to be registered and logged in to view this forum."
>
> Anyhow, my point being, it would be wise to quantify strong statements
> such as "universally agreed" before making them. For your information,
> if you would like to view the mailing archives and check for yourself
> if there really was a universal agreement, you can do so here [1].
> Personally, I think it would be a waste of your time and you will not
> find any such universal agreement.
>
> Also, I am happy to contribute to mailing list discussions, but I am
> not keen on web forums. The one constant throughout the Lincs LUG
> timeline has been the mailing list, web forums have come and gone, but
> the mailing list has remained in place (with archives, as pointed out
> above). Personally, I think it is sad that the original revival
> conversation [2] was derailed so quickly in favour of taking it off
> list. :(
>
> Anyhow, forgetting all the above, I think it is great that a new
> Lincoln LUG is being set-up. I am looking at it as a complimentary LUG
> to the existing Lincs LUG and I am looking forward to the first
> meeting. I hope to see you there. :)
>
>  -- Philip
>
> [1]: http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/lincs/
> [2]: http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/lincs/2011-August/001210.html

Is there a reason why you didn't sign up to view the thread?

There were several participants, and from the recountings of Mr Baker,  
it has come up for discussion on IRC (no idea about logs) and  
Discussion face to face (You can guess about the logs) So maybe my  
choice of words were poor, but given the (minimal) consensus from the  
brief discussion on the forum, running sub-groups in parallel with the  
main LUG does seem to be a bad idea.

Perhaps you could cast this idea out to the rest of the LUG and see  
how they respond to it?

Maybe things raced away once the forum was setup - it's a shame you  
didn't take the time to join in. Personally I've found them to be a  
very friendly way of interacting with the Web community at large.

Perhaps we should have brought some of that discussion to the mailing  
list - it is something we're actively looking to do, getting a digest  
of the forum activity posted to the list once a week. As the forum has  
been "rebooted", bringing it into the 21st century, there's some  
teething troubles, and the digest isn't there yet.

I think the Combined Lincs/Lincoln LUG get together could be a  
wonderful thing - where and when would it be?

Chris