[KLUG Members] loyalty, maturity and responsibility

[Eric Beversluis]

On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 23:14 -0400, Lunitix wrote:


> This group is making moves toward general public education and the 
> people who left are those who look more toward the professional user. 
> This may make for a more diversified group of users being reached with 
> less "guff" from either group.  It has long been a issue as to who KLUG 
> is directing it's attentions towards.  Now these groups are seperate.

I have been a member for nearly three years and an officer for nearly
two calendar years and have not heard this issue debated. This question
of who KLUG should be trying to serve--and whether that question even
involves an "either/or"--is an important "philosophical" question. The
closest any discussions I can recall have come to it were like this: 
   "Let's do X."
   "We've tried that and it doesn't work."

As a quasi-tech, I'm eager to see KLUG serve both the more sysadmin type
user (I've enjoyed the many presentations in that area, even when I
haven't followed all the details) and the more end-use oriented groups.
> 
> So which is "mature" - "Stand and Fight" or "Turn The Other Cheek".
> There are arguments for both, but only one can be chosen.  You are 
> choosing to stand and fight for the Group as it is.  Others are choosing 
> to turn away instead creating such problems that the group would surely 
> dissolve.  Instead of making digs at those who have chosen to leave, you 
> should respect their decision.  Maturity here is two sided.  They chose 
> to leave and not create more issues and yours is to support that which 
> is left. We all can survive this and be better as seperate entities.
> 
I'm not sure this is true. Together we would (could) be stronger. The
skills and knowledge of what Jon calls the "more professional user" are
crucial for helping end-users have success with GNU/Linux. I believe
there are philosophical issues here that need to be considered. It's not
merely an issue of "dancing with an ugly woman." It's whether there are
values and considerations that are more significant than personalities
and styles. 

> Eric Beversluis wrote:
> > Consider some guys who have been members of a group for half a dozen or
> > so years--a group they consider very important and to which they've
> > devoted much energy. Now they find that the currently elected leadership
> > of the group is doing things that are not to their liking. What's the
> > mature and nonselfish thing to do? Surely not just to pick up their
> > marbles and go play some place else. Such behavior not only indicates a
> > selfish interest in themselves and their own satisfaction but also the
> > lack of enough maturity to stick with the group and try to move it in a
> > more satisfactory direction. And, furthermore, if the group has general
> > social value--as, for example, a group that is a 501(3)c public
> > charity--then maybe there are also nonselfish reasons for sticking with
> > the group, despite temporary dissatisfactions, rather than sulking off
> > to start another group.
> > 
> > EB
> > _______________________________________________
> > Members mailing list
> > Members at kalamazoolinux.org
> > 
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> Members mailing list
> Members at kalamazoolinux.org
>