On Nov 10, 2007 6:18 PM, Jonathan Hutchins [email protected] wrote:
On Friday 09 November 2007 23:02:52 Billy Crook wrote:
Yeah, that's a good point. You really don't want to shut out the youth.
Yeah, cause, right now the meetings are just CRAWLING with kids, aren't they?
I haven't been to a meeting either. But primarily because it sounded like the parking was a mess. You can't declare there isn't a problem with the meeting location to fix by polling people who went. They're already a self selected group.
You people are fools. Someone offers you a great place to have the meetings, for free, with excellent facilities, and all you can do is come up with objections without even having seen the place. Oh dear, it's not commercially neutral.
I also don't see the problem with that. If companies want to sponsor meetings, it sounds fine to me, as long as they're not turning the event into a promotional opportunity for their company. If the group is popular / valuable enough to warrant multiple competing bids, perhaps then one can talk about perceived neutrality and sponsorship processes. But for the moment the choice appears to be between a location that doesn't appreciate foreign hardware, doesn't stay open late enough, a restaurant that wants the group's business.
Nobody says every meeting from now on has to be there. If there are actually people who don't like it, whether they've seen it or not, they don't have to come.
To put that more constructively: perhaps a test run is in order? Maybe hold a meeting at each place and write down lessons learned. If people like these each of places enough perhaps a rotating schedule could work.
Justin Dugger