[sf-lug] Status of SF-LUG / Linux meeting(s) @ Noisebridge? & SF-LUG web site (mis?)information thereof

[Todd Hawley]

On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 11:41 AM Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> wrote:

There was a brief period when the page's claim about a Noisebridge Linux
> Discussion meeting 'usually on Wednesday evenings' at Noisebridge's
> Turing classroom was kinda-sorta-maybe accurate.  I went a couple of
> times -- long years ago.  The first time, I found Maestro and one other
> guy poking at some tiny control-less hardware appliance utterly unknown
> to me, and the first thing that happened was they both turned to me and
> asked me how it worked.  The question was more than a little
> dumbfounding.  (Mind you, the page says nothing at all about how to
> motivate someone inside Noisebridge to buzz you into the street
> entrance, so I had quite a time making a fool of myself on the Mission
> Street sidewalk before I could even walk up and find the alleged
> Noisebridge Linux Discussion meeting at all.)  The two guys' poking at
> the device continued for maybe half an hour, but never resulted in it
> doing anything, and at the end ISTR that Maestro revealed the device
> being some sort of gadget that imitates and communicates with existing
> wireless networks.  Notably absent from this entire session was any
> Linux discussion.  Then, everyone wandered off.  As this was my first
> visit to Noisebridge, I wandered around the various spaces for another
> 15 minutes, then went home.
>

Interesting. I went there once or twice to see if the LUG meeting was on
(it wasn't) and
had no trouble walking in. The door was unlocked and I let myself in. I
asked
one of the folk there about the LUG meeting and he said that the group
hadn't met
regularly in some time, but I was welcome to stick around and see if anyone
showed up. After waiting 30-40 minutes, I then left. I was rather annoyed
that
I'd spent the time getting over there and then waited for anyone to show up
and
effectively wasted half of my evening.


> On a subsequent Wednesday, I went again at just barely after 6 pm, and
> there was nobody at Noisebridge in the Turing room.  Other people at
> Noisebridge (only a couple on that occasion) had no knowledge of a Linux
> discussion group.  So, I waited for about an hour, fortunately having
> brought reading material, then went home.  I inquired when I next saw
> the regulars, and Maestro said (paraphrasing very vaguely from memory)
> 'Oh, we met for a few minutes and left.'  Having tried twice and found,
> on occasion #1, no Linux discussion, and on occasion #2, no people, I
> didn't try a third time.
>
> On Jan. 2, 2016, Jim Stockford posted to this mailing list, on a brief
> thread with Subject header 'Linux Noisebridge events ... not going on':
>
>   As I'd tho't the notices were down, and because
>   the attendance had been zero or one for months, I
>   saw no need to email the list or mention cessation
>   to the people attending the SF-LUG meetings.
>
> I replied (http://linuxmafia.com/pipermail/sf-lug/2016q1/011601.html):
>
>   Well, letting BALE and the Google Calendar folks know would have been
>   useful, to help them maintain accuracy.
>
> ...and immediately removed the recurring item about a Noisebridge Linux
> Discussion meeting from BALE.
>

That seems like a reasonable suggestion. I seem to recall someone
on list awhile back (but after 1/2/16) tried to get the meetings started up
again
by posting about it on list saying he'd be there if anyone cared to show up.
Apparently no one did and after a few weeks seemed to feel like he got a
less than
friendly reception from the NoiseBridge folk. Eventually he stopped posting
about
the meeting and up until this thread, was the last I'd heard about it.

At the risk of indulging a joke that our excellent friend Jim doubtless
> got -really- tired of, fifty-three years ago:  'It's dead, Jim.'  But
> also see below.
>

Heh.

Magic 8-Ball (http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Linux_PR/newlug.html) says:

>
>    6. You need to make sure that meetings _happen_ as advertised,
>    without fail.
>
>    One LUG in my area fell apart largely because the president set an
>    aggressive meeting schedule, and then failed to show up to unlock the
>    meeting room. Would-be attendees then looked up the next meeting date on
>    the Web, showed up, found a locked door, and (soon) give up on the group
>    entirely. So, if possible, have multiple people arrange to show up
>    early. Also, post signs/flyers near the meeting site.
>
>    If you need to cancel or reschedule an event that you've already been
>    advertising as "upcoming", don't simply remove the original listing on
>    your Web pages: Continue to list it, _prominently marked_ as
>    cancelled/rescheduled.
>
> That was CCSF LUG, by the way, whose president I politely advised that
> advertising a _weekly_ LUG schedule seemed risky and should be
> reconsidered.  She didn't, and the group pretty much immediately fell
> apart because people kept showing up and finding nobody, which convinced
> them that CCSF LUG maybe _used_ to exist but no longer did, at which
> point it became nearly impossible to overcome that impression which
> became a self-fulfilling prophecy.
>

Which is a shame. I attended a couple of their meetings long ago and it
seemed like a knowledgeable and good group of folk. And once again your
comments seem reasonable. However I've come to find out (and maybe you
have too) that people running meetings where the leader doesn't show up or
is two hours late seem to really hate to be reminded of this fact. I
remember a non-computer
group I used to belong to where this happened (meeting started 2 hours late
and
after most of us had already left) and I emailed one of the organizers
about it and
got a couple of rather nasty replies, to the point I finally had to block
their email
address. And to the best of my knowledge, that group also no longer meets.
Go figure.

-th
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://linuxmafia.com/pipermail/sf-lug/attachments/20190522/3f006c7e/attachment.html>