[conspire] Transition from job policy to membership quality, SF-LUG

[Rick Moen]

Quoting jim stockford (jim at well.com):

> As to policy, I stand firm: if the membership discusses and
> coalesces around a policy, I'll doc it.

Then you should do it (IMVAO):  The status quo is that jobs postings are
OK.  More on that below.

Not that this entire thing is really worth a lot of time; thus the
brevity of this post.

> Some statement to the effect that job postings are okay needlessly
> invites such and also doesn't truly represent the group's sentiment.

And yet, the functional truth is that they _are_ OK, because nobody
stops, sanctions, or discourages them:  Policy is what policy does.  And
_that_ is really the more important, long-term truth I'm trying to point
out.  (The jobs thing itself, by contrast, is trivia, really.)

> A statement that we have not agreed on a policy on job postings, which
> is the truth, seems silly.

The truth, in effect, is that the group as a whole doesn't care enough
to make special provisions.  Therefore, jobs postings are OK.

> The group has leaders who pop up from time to time, and
> that suits me fine.

Wait, earlier today it had no leaders, and now it has them, but 
they come and go?  ;->

> I am afraid of anyone being too prominent--don't like the idea of
> so-and-so's group.

You know, having observed a lot of LUGs (some time check out who
maintains the Linux User Group HOWTO for the Linux Documentation Project
;->  ), I am pretty firmly of the view that LUGs need to get over that.
Why?  Because it helps nobody to avoid being forthright about who's been
taking care of which group function, just in the name of avoiding being
"too prominent":  It just creates confusion.  E.g., SVLUG has that
problem from time to time, with the result that nobody knows whom to
contact about being a speaker, because they guy in charge wants to keep
a low profile.


> transition.... Rick, I read an ad hominem element to your
> writing, no offense taken, thanks for making me think,
> regardless of your intention.

Not so intended, and I regret that perception.

>     Quality of membership, tire-kickers division: if membership
> is those who've joined the mailing list, we have some
> knowledgeable and experienced members, we have some
> newbies, we have some that require particular categorization
> (or not).

Well, I was talking about the overall impression one gets.

>     Tire-kickers should be welcome, in my view (if the group
> decides not, it'll be despite my strenuous defense).

I have nothing against tire-kickers -- though sometimes I can't help
thinking and saying "For heaven's sake, wouldn't it be easier and faster
to just boot a Linux disk and see, rather than asking such a boatload of
questions from the outside?"  Vincent Polite comes readily to mind, for
example.

>     I am sure many have booted from a live CD--I'm guessing
> more than half. 

Eh, I hope you're right.  I was guessing more like 20%.

>     I.e. specifics wanted on how to get tire-kickers to grow.

Make 'em jealous.  ;->

Personally, I'm simply _not_ a Linux evangelist.  Linux long ago reached
the point where any minimally curious person can find out about it with
just about zero expense and trouble, and also I can't see why I should
especially try to influence other people's taste in software in the
first place.