[SWLUG] Cardiff meeting follow-up

[Chris Jackson]

Among the topics of discussion:

State of the LUG
March issue of Linux Format (KDE on the cover) describes most LUGs as
being run by means of a disorganised democracy.  Probably more
accurately described as a pathiocracy - governed by those who can be
bothered to do so, which only becomes a problem when we lack in the
commodity of "people that can be bothered".  People that want to get
things done should have information to hand to help them do it, and
for things such as organizing a specific event, something akin to an
ad hoc committee might be useful to get over the I-will-if-you-will
hurdle if several people are interested in it.  Finding someone
willing to plan an execute an event is good, but repeatedly relying on
them to do so is less so.

Events
Holding something a little more formal than a pub gathering at least
once a quarter is probably a good idea.  Suggestions have included
lightning talks (possibly using the Ignite format - featured speaker
optional), an install-fest, or a mini-conference.  The Quaker house in
Cardiff was suggested as a candidate venue, on the basis that it has
similar facilities to and is available on similar terms to the house
in Swansea.

Lightning talk format: http://perl.plover.com/lt/osc2003/lightning-talks.html
Ignite: http://ignite.oreilly.com/

Communication
It was suggested that other avenues than the mailing list be explored.
 One suggestion was a forum, with the advantage of an easy jumping-in
point for someone reading ongoing discussions - subscribing to a list
to join a thread in progress gets untidy, and context is often lost.
I have since spotted Nabble which gives purports to give mailing lists
forum-like features, and would allow a new subscriber who has read the
archives to inject their response at the appropriate place on the
thread, maintaining the context.  I do not believe that this
necessarily compromises the list, though I've not looked into it in
great detail.  Keeping the website up-to-date would be nice - the
means are at our disposal, the problem is people bothering to actually
write the content in the first place (I have my share of guilt in this
too).

Nabble: http://www.nabble.com/

Closed minds
Group seemed to agree that "tried that once, didn't work" isn't
helpful, especially with the passage of time.  It was suggested that
sometimes it may be useful to set aside identity completely, whether
using some mechanism for real-life discussions such as the Chatham
House Rule, or some technical means for anonymous contributions, as
seen on places such as The Register's comments section or 4chan (both
of which are good examples of technique and bad examples of results).
The relative merits were discussed, including whether it's more
important to understand the substance of an argument rather than who
has made it, or perhaps that this is something that we should be doing
as right-thinking human beings in the first place.

The Chatham House Rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatham_House_Rule
On anonymity: http://wakaba.c3.cx/shii/ (latter half)

In summary, it would probably be a good idea if we set ourselves a
definitive target of running three events this year, and look at what
we can do to achieve this.

If I've missed anything that didn't concern Superman's foreskin, or
that one-liners are funnier when read deadpan by posh newsreaders, do
speak up.

-- 
Chris Jackson