Accusations and challenges (was: [oclug] Re: oclug traffic)
rod at giffinscientific.com
Fri Nov 5 11:45:34 EST 2004
ed stuckems said:
> On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 09:47:31 -0500 (EST), Rod Giffin
> <rod at giffinscientific.com> wrote:
>>Why shouldn't we have a discussion which may include information about
>> how the board is performing on the general list?
> Well, if you want to complain about the board on the general list
> (which seems to be only activity on this list these days), can I
> request a linux at lists.oclug.on.ca mailing list (similar to the
> linux-novice list but unmoderated) that is restricted to technical
> discussion on linux and open source software?
You can. We have. I am not bashing the board. If I had a beef with the
board, I would have posted on the board list. I was asking a question
about why we shouldn't have a discussion about the board on the general
list. This is the general discussion list, and as such is for general
discussions about Linux, the LUG <-- which is the topic of my question,
and subjects that are of intetest to the Linux community.
People who want a technical only discussion should realixe we've been
trying to make a case for a technical only OCLUG list since at least April
of 2002. Splitting the list has been resisted. That's not a complaint,
that's a fact. And some of the reasons for the resistance are valid.
> If you feel that the board is ineffective, ruddless, whatever, hold a
I never said that, and seriously I hope this is the only time you ever try
to put words into my mouth. I support OCLUG, and I support OCLUG's board.
I wasn't board bashing, or anything of the sort. I say that OCLUG is what
it is because it put itself on that road. It wasn't the board that did
that, it was the membership. For good or bad. The membership of any
community is responsible for what and how that community develops. The
board can only reflect that. If it does not, I'm well aware of the
methods for removing the board. I'm not talking about that.
More information about the OCLUG