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

Wed May 22 21:40:53 PDT 2019

Thanks Rick, Todd, et. al. for updating status/experiences regarding
the whatever it *was* Linux thingy at Noisebridge on SF-LUG's web page.

Executive action (for public/Linux interest and lack of anyone else
bothering to do it - and looks to be a chronic problem that's gone on
for probably years or more) ... and based upon the reasonably available
credible evidence, history, track record ...

$ wget -q -O - https://www.sf-lug.org/ | fgrep -i noisebridge
<LI>Support the Noisebridge Linux Discussion meeting when it happens,  
usually on Wednesday evenings, from 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM (or so) in the  
Turing classroom.<br>
Noisebridge is located at 2169 Mission Street, very near 18th Street,  
in San Francisco.
<br><A href="http://www.noisebridge.net">Noisebridge</A></LI><br>
$ hostname; id; pwd -P
balug-sf-lug-v2.balug.org
uid=22035(sflugwww) gid=22035(sflugwww) groups=22035(sflugwww)
/var/www/www.sf-lug.org
$ TZ=GMT0 stat index.php
   File: index.php
   Size: 3902            Blocks: 8          IO Block: 4096   regular file
Device: fe02h/65026d    Inode: 166014      Links: 1
Access: (0644/-rw-r--r--)  Uid: (22035/sflugwww)   Gid: (22035/sflugwww)
Access: 2019-05-23 04:26:15.533244867 +0000
Modify: 2016-07-18 16:18:38.521393742 +0000
Change: 2016-07-18 16:18:38.521393742 +0000
  Birth: -
$ ex index.php
index.php: unmodified: line 75
:1
<HTML>
:se ignorecase
:g/Noisebridge/,/Noisebridge/d
:w !diff % -
54,56d53
< <LI>Support the Noisebridge Linux Discussion meeting when it  
happens, usually
on Wednesday evenings, from 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM (or so) in the Turing  
classroom.<
br>
< Noisebridge is located at 2169 Mission Street, very near 18th  
Street, in San F
rancisco.
< <br><A href="http://www.noisebridge.net">Noisebridge</A></LI><br>
diff index.php -: exited with status 1
:wq
index.php: 72 lines, 3582 characters
$ wget -q -O - https://www.sf-lug.org/ | fgrep -i noisebridge
$

I.e. done - Noisebridge stuff stripped from the web page.

Your welcome.

references/excerpts:

http://linuxmafia.com/pipermail/sf-lug/
http://linuxmafia.com/pipermail/sf-lug.mbox/sf-lug.mbox

> From: "Todd Hawley" <celticdm at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [sf-lug] Status of SF-LUG / Linux meeting(s) @  
> Noisebridge? & SF-LUG web site (mis?)information thereof
> Date: Wed, 22 May 2019 19:46:16 -0700

> 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