[kwlug-disc] Announcement: (Alternate) Meeting Space for kwlug secured - King & William

[unsolicited]

Paul Nijjar wrote, On 10/05/2010 12:25 AM:
> On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 08:39:47AM -0400, unsolicited wrote:
>> Which is to say - if, when, and should, kwlug desire or require an
>> alternative to SJK, this location is in the hopper and will be
>> available. 
> 
> I am fine with moving or staying, but I think we should not move any
> time before the December meeting. If we move in January then we will
> have spent one year at SJK.

With respect, I suggest we leave well enough alone until a sufficient 
number of non-regular list posters feel sufficiently inclined to ask 
that it be discussed collectively at a meeting. The feelings of the 
regular list posters are well known, and they are well able, and have 
shown so, to speak up if they have concerns. My read of their 
consensus is to let sleeping dogs lie. I have confidence that should 
others feel strongly, they will readily and cooperatively go with the 
flow.

No matter where we meet, there will be pros and cons. There were 
disadvantages to working centre, some of which were addressed at 
Huether, and some of which were lost in going to SJK. No doubt 
wherever we go, should we go, there will be a mix of gains and losses.

> I would prefer not to meet in the chapel. The other rooms are nice.

I take your point, and don't expect you to be alone in that. 
'Sanctuary' is right out, too.

Unfortunately, there was a mixup, and the 'nice' room is not available 
to us. Sorry guys, couches aren't present. But there's more room for 
putting tables up for people with laptops.

> There are some people who will not attend meetings at First United.

Could you please quantify how many you know of in this situation? I 
only know of 1. Sadly, size does matter - if 99% of a group are 
ecstatic about something, they pay less attention to the 1%. Attitudes 
change if it's 5%, 30%, or 60%.

> There are also (I think) people who do not attend meetings at SJK
> now.

Didn't know that.

> Both situations make me sad.

Agreed.

> In my defence, I did warn y'all of the noise issues when proposing
> SJK. But I agree that the background noise is a problem (and that
> there is no easy way to reduce it). 

Paul, you need no defence. We needed a place, you found it for us, You 
were then able to extend it beyond the initial 3 months. Thank you. 
Full stop - thank you.

Any port in a storm.

> We will have the option of going back to SJK if we want (at least for
> the forseeable future). 

I guess I just assumed that. Good to see it confirmed.


Please, if this all is an issue, let's stop abusing this list, try to 
prevent losing yet more list members over the volume of messages this 
'off-topic' topic can generate, and take it to general discussion at a 
meeting. Or, at the least, off-line to some other vehicle.