On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Billy Crook [email protected] wrote:

There is no question. The LUG needs formal organization. First and foremost, There needs to be an official 'position' of authority, and a fallback person for when the primary is unavailable.

Those position should be elected yearly or every 6 months. Any thoughts on whether the election should he held:

At the meeting

 - filters out people less effected, or who don't feel strongly

enough to show up - ballots can be 'issued' one per person - straight forward to tally - can have a secret ballot

On the forums

 - includes everyone, bringing along people who might not even be

effected - vulnerable to multiple votes by anyone - a simple poll (like this one) can do the tallying) - basically secret ballot (in the hands of the server admin)

On the mailing list

 - includes everyone, bringing along people who might not even be

effected - vulnerable to multiple votes by anyone - chaotic, difficult to tally - no secret ballot

I think voting in person at a meeting is the best route. What are your thoughts?

Once chosen, the leader should be responsible for:

 - LUG website
 - Mailinglist
 - Planning for LUG growth
 - Scheduling actual topics, or goals for the LUG
 - Events

Any volunteers?

Also on the topic of organization. I think two new mailinglists should be created. A Linux-only list, moderated by the elected leader or his delegates, and an unmoderated, everything else list. If people want to partake in off topic discussion, they should be able to, with those who want to hear it. After the two new ones are live, no new members should go on the old ones, and it should eventually be phased out, as people transition over.

On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Steven Hildreth [email protected] wrote:

...

Greetings,

Please check out and vote;

http://www.kclug.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=33

It would be great to get feedback on the forum thread, for future

reference

...

for when this question comes up again (which it does from time to time

with

...

people who drop in see what a cluckerfest KCLUG is and never return).

Regards, Steven

---

Kclug mailing list [email protected] http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug

The Spock's Beard alternate reality is perhaps more suited to KCLUG as a whole ever agreeing upon Ordnung

Then again, you could go to all this trouble and core members could just ignore you and continue to control the website, et al.

On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Billy Crook [email protected] wrote:

There is no question. The LUG needs formal organization. First and foremost, There needs to be an official 'position' of authority, and a fallback person for when the primary is unavailable.

...

I think voting in person at a meeting is the best route. What are your thoughts?

Once chosen, the leader should be responsible for:

  - LUG website
  - Mailinglist
  - Planning for LUG growth
  - Scheduling actual topics, or goals for the LUG
  - Events

We could title said person "Den Mother" :)

that said, I've got some half-written infrastructure for holding weighted ranked approval voting operations which is one of my niche business projects for virtual organizations; in case anyone would like to take it over from me and talk about requirements for doing web-based weighted ranked approval voting (wikipedia is a really good resource on approval voting and the various explored configurations and their strengths and weaknesses; including the kind that is used to select, for instance, the secretary general of the UN) please contact me off-list and

<snip>

Or you could place all the members names/handles on pieces of paper, put them in a hat and throw them up in the air. Whoever sticks to the ceiling is stuck with the job.

</snip>

What kind of hat do you propose to use?

Plus, I feel that just one such toss leaves too much to chance. I believe that we should have everyone at said meeting perform such a hat toss. The results of each hat toss must be tabulated. Only when all hat toss events in consecutive order have the same outcome will we know the true Den Mother of the LUG! The Great Bird of the Galaxy ordains it!!!!111!

Seriously, the mail list seems to work. The IRC channel works. We kinda-sorta-maybe know where people are going to be for meetings (not that I've been to many lately.). What is the problem that this increased organization is going to solve? Are we planning to wield some political power in the future? Are we going to go on field trips and need contact people? Are we creating an organization so that people can start putting "Kansas City LUG" on resumes?

I'm all for cool events for tech stuff. I don't know about wielding political power or holding GNU putschen for "The Greater Freedom". I think that having multiple ways of communicating for the LUG is cool, and I think that a separation of power is important for each. That way people don't get pissy and take the whole system down.

I would observe that we are having enough problems determining whether or not organization is good and needed. I don't know if we could even get together on goals and events after that!

Are we talking about a sea change here? Or are we just whining that we don't have "organization" for organization's sake? Is lack of organization cited that much by people leave the group?

I'll put two questions out there for the hell of it. Maybe it'll help dialog. Maybe it'll help flameage.

Billy Crook:

I know that trying to agree on any goals before talking about organization methodology would be putting the cart before the horse, but if you feel strongly about getting this whole thing up and running, it might be nice to have a sort of platform to go with, some assorted goals/events that might be cool/nice/important. This might motivate people to understand why organization is important to you.

Brian:

I think that your comment about having "core members", those already administrating the listserv/website, ignoring any other type of organization is important. What would keep this from happening? If such a sea change takes place in the LUG, where would they fit in the structure? Would you say that said members are opposed to further organization?

I plan on putting my foot in my mouth real soon.

Tim

On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 12:53 AM, Leo Mauler [email protected] wrote:

I agree as well about KCLUG organization, though piling all "administrative duties" on one person may be going a little too far too fast.

For example, Christopher Bier has been doing a fantastic job representing KCLUG with ITEC, but I suspect he wouldn't want to take on the Supreme OverPenguin job and have to do everything else as well.

I see three administrative positions, not just one:

(1) ITEC (and related exhibition conference) representative, for which I nominate Christopher Bier.

(2) Mailing list and website manager.

(3) Physical meeting "chairperson" and local KCLUG event organizer.

Number (3) might even need to have a primary and a secondary, since work and personal schedules sometimes conflict with KCLUG meeting and local small event nights.

This message has been copied onto the message board as well.

Could we consider some degree/s of feedback mechanics, That is meant in this case as letting the administrative person/s know the group's actual majority+consensus. And that's not a redundancy. We can have dissent become destructive or constructive and in MY vision of how it could work- the Administrators working title should properly be "Consensus Director" with implied stress on Consensus as the desire of the group.

On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 9:20 AM, Monty J. Harder [email protected] wrote:

Some people who oppose greater formal organization may consider participating in the poll to be implicitly endorsing such organization. Therefore, all people who don't respond should be considered to be "no" votes.

How would we know the quantity of these "no" votes?

I think somewhat the opposite is true. Those people who do register and "go through the trouble" of voting, by doing so, indicate they have enough commitment that they care to the outcome. It's somewhat comparable to a electoral process; Those who don't bother to vote, have no right to complain about the outcome of the voting.

This makes no sense to me. First, I've never bought into the argument that those who don't vote (whatever they election in question) have no right to complain. This claim is always completely without merit or foundation. We all have a constitutional right to complain but no constitutional duty to vote. Wishing people would vote and dreaming up a punishment of a restricted right to speak for those who don't yield to our wishes is just plain silly.

Huh? That makes no sense to me...

If you don't vote for something, then you had no voice in making that decision and no voice means no complaints. Same as in any type of voting situation.

Thank you for your logic, but everyone who recognizes that formal organization is imperative may consider their very participation in the poll itself an act of hubris, as clearly, there is no question. Therefore, everyone not participating in the poll (dozens if not hundreds) have already spoken by their silence, and the poll is over.

If nothing else, not voting gives tacit approval to whatever outcome happens as a result of your not voting. Anyone who doesn't care enough about their own opinion to voice it, self-evidently acknowledges the unimportance of his/her opinion.

So, back to the LUG. Since it is decided there will be a supreme commander, let us move on to deciding nominees. I nominate Chris Bier.

It would be in poor taste to nominate yourself, but lets start throwing out names.

On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 9:20 AM, Monty J. Harder [email protected] wrote: ...

Therefore, all people who don't respond should be considered to be "no"

...