[kwlug-disc] (In progress) kwlug candidate meeting site sourced.

[unsolicited]

Raul Suarez wrote, On 12/20/2009 8:57 AM:
> --- On Sat, 12/19/09, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday at crashcourse.ca> wrote:

> Another point of disagreement. I don't work in a "linux"
> environment so I don't see it as mainstream as you.

Would you like to?

How do we get there?

Do we exclude those who do?

> To my point that it is not as mainstream as you may perceive.

Would you like it to be?

How do we get there? Is the effort worthwhile?

> Besides, most reporters wait for information to be pushed to them,
> that's one of the reasons why companies have whole departments
> doing press releases.

Shall we start pushing stuff to them, then?

What should we push? By whom? When? On what?

> We didn't loose the place to meet, we decided that it was noisy, no
> one kicked us out. Actually, regarding success this is interesting:
> The other reason was that attendance grew to a point that we didn't
> even fit the space. That to me qualifies as successful.

Sophistry. The environment became too noisy - untenable. We lost the 
space, pushed out.

We had more space available (whether or not we used it), before the 
cafe came in. Note the way we changed orientation (screen positioning) 
presumably in an attempt to make the newly present traffic transiting 
the corridor less meeting disruptive. Traffic that wasn't transiting 
prior.

> This is a User's group. I don't know what other metric you can use.
> Why not measure against "other user's groups"?

If you have such metrics, please post them.

>> Maybe i'm just being overly critical.

You are not.

Observations, criticism, discussion, and debate, are all good. 
Particularly if it's constructive / thought provoking, not just whining.

>>  but the thought that a
>> *linux* user group in the most technically-advanced community in
>> the country can't find a reliable place to meet strikes me as
>> just plain weird.

Agreed. (And well said / pointed out.)

kwlug wonderfully produces content for itself that the group wants for 
itself.

The other way to look at it is, it's also weird that we have not been 
so inundated with Linux aficionados that such content has emerged.

Why not?

> :) We certainly can get a place. I think that we put a lot of
> caveats;

Can we? To Bob's point, with Linux popularity, offers should be 
pouring out of the woodwork. Yet, for some reason, they're not.

The nature of a group defines its requirements. We're a computer club, 
in an interconnected world (we'd be similar, but not the same, if the 
internet didn't exist), open to all walks of life and income, for free.

Nobody wants to change that, but it does engender meeting space criteria.

> - Accessible - Inclusive - Regular (always the same time of the
> month) - Independent: Not tied to anyone else's agenda.

By definition, any group getting together has a topic (agenda). The 
group would not be congregating, otherwise.

What is kwlug's agenda?

If we were independent, we wouldn't be looking for meeting space - 
we'd have our own building.


> As a reflection: Do you think that the KWLUG would be more
> successful if the smaller number of people that regularly buy food
> met at the Heuther?

No.

It would be different. It would not be kwlug.

akin to the FOSS idea of low barrier to entry.