[wlug_org] NZOSS & WLUG advocacy?

[Jamie Baddeley]

On Sun, 2004-05-23 at 08:36, Wood Brent wrote:
> > On Sat, 2004-05-22 at 21:47, Colin Klenner wrote:
> > I would like (and this is purely my idea to you all to discuss the
> > merits of) people who belong to NZOSS to include in the general news at
> > the beginning of meetings a short 'news from the advocacy front' type of
> > talk so that others who wish to support that then can identify with
> > them, and can take up the advocacy discussions through NZOSS itself.
> 
> The impression I have is that the main cause of angst in WLUG at the moment is
> what level of advocacy we pursue. Opinions range from minimal, (the traditional
> level of activity in this area) to maybe lots more...
> 
> There seems to be a core membership who do not wish to be involved in advocacy
> at all. Forcing more of this type of noise on such people would (my guess) be a
> bit divisive. 
> 
> My preference is to leave NZOSS stuff out of the LUG, but possibly mention
> advocacy (& other) stuff that WLUG members are involved with. 
> 
> So if a LUG member is involved in a political/advocacy/NZOSS activity, sure,
> let other members know, but keep it very LUG focused.
> 
> There is a link to the NZOSS site on the LUG web site for those who are
> interested. Respect the choice of those who are not interested.
> 
This seems to be an entirely sensible plan (which in my head was the
plan we were always working to (can someone tell me when it changed?)).
Didn't we all basically have this agreed back in February? 

I certainly remember saying that NZOSS needs to a better job in
Wellington (and that it was not the role of the lug to do this) - but
that the Wellington LUG could probably encourage NZOSS to do a better
job. At the end of the day, it is best for NZOSS to do advocacy, rather
than split focus and resources. I think it'd be good for Peter Harrison
(and co) to make an appearance, so we can at least ask him some
questions.

Incidentally, whilst I'm on the subject, I look around, and frankly I'm
struggling to find examples/evidence of these eeevvviiilll advocacy
types around that are threatening to change our lug for the worse as
some people would have us believe (anyway I digress - and don't
misconstrue that as flame fanning :-) )

...One of the important things is to make sure that other lug members
don't try to suppress others interest in areas that are outside their
own - so conversely, also respect the choice of those who are interested
[in for example OSS stuff]. If people want to do an update on what's
happening in this area (at meetings) - then they are welcome. 

But like we have *always* said it_is_a_users_group first and foremost. 

The most important thing is to be accepting of other peoples perpectives
and views. Being intolerant, and close minded are not philosophies that
I'd seek to work towards. I don't want to live life in a cave. There are
all sorts of people in the lug. Trying to strike a balance in meeting
the needs and interests of everyone is worthwhile. ***It's about being
inclusive - not exclusive***
In fact, it is this which primarily drove us to wanting to come up with
a "guidelines" document in the first place. 

Another thing is recognising that things grow, change and adapt. Things
can't always be the way they used to be. Sorry. That's life. Darwin was
often misquoted. It wasn't survival of the fittest - it was "those who
adapt survive"

There's been enough heat and smoke created over this issue, and frankly
I am bloody sick and tired of it. It's been ridiculous, things have
spiralled completely out of hand. Completely bloody unecessary and
somewhat pathetic at times. Has this dead horse been flogged senseless
yet?

Can we move forward now?

please?

jamie

> 
> Just my 02....
> 
> 
> Brent