[kwlug-disc] What would people like to do, under the auspices of kwlug?
unsolicited at swiz.ca
Sat Dec 26 03:00:07 EST 2009
Richard Weait wrote, On 12/26/2009 1:54 AM:
> On Sat, Dec 26, 2009 at 12:21 AM, unsolicited <unsolicited at swiz.ca> wrote:
>> Richard Weait wrote, On 12/25/2009 5:11 PM:
>>> On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 5:55 PM, unsolicited <unsolicited at swiz.ca> wrote:
> [ ... ]
>>>> What would it take to create a kwlug egroupware site, or something, to
>>>> promote such collaborations?
>>> [IMO] You'll spend $FOREVER messing with the settings in $GROUPWARE
>> So, stop naysaying, start facilitating, and put forth a better mechanism.
> Hey, I'm just offering my opinion. So I added an "IMO" up there. I'm
> naysaying? You asked about some projects, events and topics. I
> pointed out that some folks, even some folks from KWLUG have done some
> of these things before. Doesn't this encourage you. It can all be
> done by folks just like us.
> "Start facilitating"? For your project to be named later? I've said
> I don't think that the groupware or mechanism is the problem. IMO.
Things are getting mixed up here.
I started by saying there is probably more <stuff> that could be done
that requires more than one person and less than the entire
membership, than <stuff> that can be completely masticated by a single
person, or the entire membership.
What <stuff> might people like to do as a group collaborative effort?
I later said that we don't have any functionality that facilitates
group collaboration. Does something like egroupware make sense?
You said no. Hey, that's cool, I bow to your familiarity. You didn't
follow up (facilitate) with something like "you might find <thunk>
more appropriate and useful."
>>>> More importantly - what might people like to collaborate on?
>>> THIS is your problem. On what do YOU want to spend your free time?
>>> Do it, then talk about it. And see 1,2,3 above.
>> Guess I don't see it as a problem.
> Then we disagree. Respectfully. I think it is easier for me to agree
> to participate in a project with you at your request if you tell me
> what that project is first. Without that information the answer is
> no. This is not personal, unsolicited, you should not be offended.
> There are very few people to whom I would say yes in that situation.
> Very few. That's just me and my cold, empty heart.
Understandable, and makes perfect sense. Except, I hadn't proposed any
I was soliciting project ideas. Hadn't asked anyone for anything.
Except, perhaps, what sort of collaborative tool might be useful.
>> It's not about me. It's not about the individual.
>> It's about the group, it's about the community.
>> You're publicly ridiculing me for asking the group if it would like to do
>> something as a group collaborative effort, and if so, what?
> No ridicule intended.
Reread your message. [Don't fixate on the particular word 'ridicule'
for the whole, when you do - doesn't apply.]
> I'm just not understanding. Sorry.
Does the above provide any clarity?
I take your point in some senses. Without a particular project in
hand, some aspects can't be predicted - e.g. a particular repository type.
In other senses not so much. Some infrastructure for group
collaboration, a home, seems appropriate without having a particular
project - if one assumes that people want to collaborate. A simple
e-mail group list doesn't do it.
Don't know what infrastructure. Don't even know how to get there.
Don't even know that we should go there - thus the solicitation for
More information about the kwlug-disc