[oclug] Concerned Amusement

[Greg]

I did not imagine you could write anything like this.

At the risk of blackening your reputation forever, I say "YES! YES!"
Everybody should read this for understanding, not disputing hooks.

Greg


chris h wrote:
> On Thursday 05 April 2007 22:59, The Linux Doctor wrote:
> 
>>Dear Brenda,
>>
>>A few points for you. Let us begin with the beginning.
> 
> 
> A few more points added for historical clarity. Been here since the early 
> 90's.
> 
>>You stated, "Actually, the list was founded to talk about Linux and
>>open-source software.  Other things get discussed and it is tolerated.
>>
>>Correction: OCLUG was formed as a community whose common interest was
>>Linxux where we can exchange ideas and benefit as a whole on all sorts
>>of subjects.
> 
> 
> Yuppers. The original crew and list were high end techies from generally from 
> a UNIX background. Some were friendly and some were not. Most did not 
> tolerate incompetence at the keyboard with little nubie support to solve 
> different configuration problems. You had to learn the language to 
> participate as in those early years there were no installers per se and your 
> basic system was manually configured. This attitude changed with the earliest 
> releases of redhat and SuSE with new folks came on board as these systems 
> came with installers but very poor hardware support. 
> 
> What was interesting was that folks discussed all matters as they affected 
> linux and gpl based software and both the technical business and political 
> streams that emerged from this phenom. Some even tried to inject a social 
> relevance. All this and more was hotly discussed on the lists. 
> 
> The main difference on the lists now reminds me of the differences when I was 
> in University during the 70's and 80's. In the 70's education was a dialog 
> between student and teacher to ascertain truth and reason in any subject 
> matter. Knowledge was pursued for it own merits with passion. Nothing was 
> taken for granted and everything was challenged and explored. In the 80's the 
> economic situation in the country changed and students were into education to 
> get high marks expecting a high paying job upon completion even dressing for 
> success at school. Nothing was challenged and I watched in horror as most 
> students simply copied everything verbatim that was presented in class. 
> Professors watched in horror as students would simply regurgitate what was 
> presented showing little intuition or desire to explore. Fast forward to the 
> 90-2000 and students came up with the identity of rights and entitlements. 
> After all they were purchasing a service. The pleasure of the pursuit of 
> knowledge for its own sake and merit has been replaced by personal rights to 
> high grades and an exit strategy the demands a high paying job. In the end,  
> personal growth, that what it means to be human in all its facets and 
> complexities, has been replaced by a singular desire for financial gain. 
> 
> Similarly the list has evolved. The desire to explore and challenge linux 
> related issues is now seen offensive and as its infringement on personal 
> liabilities and arguments and discussions are based on a simplistic viewpoint 
> of I'm right your wrong. The art of discussion and debate combined with the 
> pursuit of knowledge is mostly disappeared due to the lack of practice and 
> training. 
> 
> 
>>The list was a side effect of that goal.
> 
> 
> Actually the list was the primary means of communication between members. Most 
> were remote and the user base spanned several continents. 
> 
> 
>>You also stated, "The list didn't have a charter when it started, and
>>the non-Linux  and non-open-source discussions (and associated
>>flame-fests)  started to overshadow the point of the list. "
> 
> 
> I find this comment interesting as the only way the original poster could come 
> up with this conclusion is by means of the archives. This original poster was 
> not a member if I recall correctly in the "early years" rather coming on 
> board well after OCLUG had matured past the technophile days. In fact none of 
> the original OCLUG members based on the current list membership remain. Both 
> Francis and I came around well after the formation of OCLUG by at least a 
> year or two. If the original poster finds the list without character at that 
> time then perhaps the pure technical discussions at the time were of no 
> interest. This would be an interesting observation and this is the current 
> negative critique of the present list. 
> 
> 
>>The presumption that that was a bad thing came from certain corporatist
>>interests intent on taking over OCLUG and therefore legitimising
>>themselves at the same time. We wondered if OCLUG would benefit from
>>those particular corporate interests and, finally, we did not. We
>>fussed over incorporation which, in the end, did us no good.
> 
> 
> You can take this one step further. OCLUG's association with various 
> commercial interests were one sided. They needed us to legitimize their 
> efforts. To some OCLUG members this resulted in major head swelling as well 
> as opportunities for financial gain. To stimulate these associations a board 
> was formed and later incorporation. In the end, they all used us, we 
> comformed to their value systems and gained nothing in the long run. What 
> contributions were ever made to "OCLUG as a community" by those with vested 
> financial interests in linux? That is not to say that financial interest in 
> linux are a negative value or component. They are only considered negative at 
> this end if there is not a collateral contribution towards sustaining and 
> building the community of users. 
> 
> Taking it one step further. In the "early days" the distro vendors were very 
> cognizant of this and went to great efforts to support and nurture the LUG 
> system. This was particularly the case in the Silicon Valley, in Europe and 
> to a lesser extend in the general realm of the US and Canada. However once 
> IPO's were completed, the user base was abandoned as they were no longer 
> needed as a revenue base only as a labour pool. The notion of community 
> building was replaced by stockholder appeasement. The only entity that has 
> remained consistently integrated with the user base is the Debian community 
> but unfortunately due to internal issues they have declined both in terms of 
> popularity and functionality as witnessed by their release cycles, changes in 
> leadership and the rise of Ubuntu. 
> 
> 
>>But that is old history.
> 
> 
> But extremely relevant as all these matters tend to by cyclical and the same 
> perspectives are discussed over and over again without coming to a practical 
> solution. Perhaps its time to assess once again where OCLUG is going, what 
> has worked and what has not. Strip off the vestiges of failed efforts by 
> learning from them and not be condemned to repeating them. The future remains 
> open and unwritten. 
> 
> 
>>OCLUG has never been able to free itself of the "old guard" that has
>>been intent of destroying it. And, of course, the membership endorses
>>it. That's democracy for you.
> 
> 
> There is were we diverge in perspective Francis. The old guard does not exit 
> anymore. There are those however with vested interested in moving OCLUG in a 
> specific direction that I consider poorly motivated and efforts to do so seem 
> to come about every few years in the hopes of reforming an apparent 
> disfunctional organization. Nothing to do with democracy rather more to do 
> with not meeting specific people personal interests. Community building is 
> not an exercise in democracy rather an exercise in the pursuit of common 
> goals in which democracy plays only a minor role in defining those goals. The 
> real work comes from commitment to execution and that is were we all tend to 
> fall down and fail to stay the course. Discussion tends to outway 
> implementation and building of a future. 
> 
> The real question that no one wants to ask is where does OCLUG want to be in 
> three years, in what form, and with what objectives accomplished??
> 
> We have a board, we have a charter we are an incorporated entity, we have a 
> website and we have lists. But what have we accomplished as a community that 
> finds itself a subset of a larger community. Of what value have these 
> organizational structures been toward accomplishing specific goals or 
> contributions towards moving linux forward in all its aspects or to the 
> larger community that we are a part of? 
> 

-- 
Why, Benedict, did you?