[clug] Scope of list

[steve jenkin]

+1

Well put, thanks Brad.

Brad Hards wrote on 16/9/09 2:30 PM:
> Hello Daniel,
> 
> On Wednesday 16 September 2009 13:59:18 Daniel Pittman wrote:
>> Gah.  The last couple of weeks have messed with my head; I had a twitch of
>> "...but I didn't /mean/ to attack you" when you said ‘defend’ rather than
>> ‘discuss’ or whatever.  *sigh*
> I don't think it was an intentional insult, but it probably does reflect at 
> least some of the members of this list. Your approach comes across to me as 
> somewhat superior, and that is adversely affecting my perception of your 
> intentions. That is reflected in my comments below.
> 
>> ...Jacinta, I have not done much by way of presentations around the place,
>> etc.  On the other hand, a quick check of some stats tells me that I have
>> been subscribed for around 1 year, 16 weeks, 1 day, 9 hours, 30 minutes,
>> and 58 seconds, give or take propagation time.[1]
> Of which this (and the other statistics I've omitted), are an example.
> 
>> So, lots of discussion, and apparently I am either very verbose, or a
>> reasonably significant contributor to the discussions over that time.
> More contributions will come across to some people as valuable insight, and to 
> others as overbearing. Posts from people we know (e.g. from face-to-face 
> discussion) are probably easier to interpret.
> 
>> *nod*  On the other hand, we just had an annoyingly divisive discussion on
>> the list, which never helps.  This could be a brief reaction to that, or it
>> could be that it would have happened anyhow, or...
> Of which you (and others, both from Canberra and from other locations) made a 
> lot of posts that included divisive content that probably wasn't well 
> received, partly because some members lacked familiarity with what you are 
> trying to say. If those same words had come from Chris Smart (for example), we 
> still might not like them, but we'd know where he's coming from.
> 
>> *nod*  For what it is worth, like David Schoen, my reason for being here is
>> that it is a good list, with interesting discussion, and without some of
>> the social issues that make other lists less interesting to me.
> I think it was a good list. Unfortunately there has been a radical loss of 
> trust in some of the people posting. I'm not sure how to fix that. 
> 
> Perhaps we just need a clug list, to coordinate the meetings and then just 
> send people to non-locale specific lists. Perhaps we need an invite-only list 
> for random technical discussions. [I recognise that those are inherently 
> contrary to the concept of greater diversity which was the catalyst for the 
> problem, but this is almost down to a "anything is better than nothing" type 
> situation].
> 
> Brad
> 
> FWIW, I wouldn't normally consider sending anything to another LUG list. I see 
> a LUG as a place for people to work together to solve problems. Its the 
> together part that builds trust and confidence. A LUG isn't just a place to get 
> answers from an oracle. 
> 


-- 
Steve Jenkin, Info Tech, Systems and Design Specialist.
0412 786 915 (+61 412 786 915)
PO Box 48, Kippax ACT 2615, AUSTRALIA

sjenkin at canb.auug.org.au http://members.tip.net.au/~sjenkin