[wellylug] Formalising WellyLUG - revisited

[Jamie Dobbs]

On Tue, 2004-01-27 at 07:33, Damon Lynch wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-01-26 at 23:38, Jamie Dobbs wrote:
> 
> > My own personal feeling (which seem to be shared by a number of others)is
> > that the current set-up of the LUG works well for most people and that
> > there is no real need to change this. Formalisation, in my view, will just
> > deter many people, who might otherwise want to, from becoming involved
> > with the group.
> 
> Which LUGs are you comparing Wellylug with? Also, do you have any
> examples of LUGs that have had their membership and outputs decrease
> instead of increase when formalised?

No comparison is being made at all. If the majority want formalisation
then that is what will happen. 
I am simply stating my feelings on the subject, and those of a couple of
people who have spoken to me directly on the subject.
As has already been stated by Colin, perhaps formalisation is the wrong
word to use, what is really being looked at is structure and
organisation which I have no real issue with. 
I think what most people have issue with is the idea of a subscription
as there is the fear that this will deter people from joining the LUG,
and there is no real need for a subscription as we have basically no
costs. When there are costs (InstallFests etc.) they can often be self
funding.
Another thing that people appear to have issue with is having a
committee, which in some cases can complicate things rather than ease
them. If organisation of events etc. is needed then perhaps just look at
an informal committee structure just for that event.