[buug] Reviving CalLUG

[Paul Ivanov]

Mark Lu, on 2011-04-19 17:42,  wrote:
> As a current Cal undergrad and signatory for one student group, I'd
> be interested in assisting in this process.

Great - I already made myself a signatory on both groups, so once
you become one, we're half way to the required number of
signatories. You can do that over here:
http://campuslife.berkeley.edu/orgs/manage

select these two groups:
* Cal Linux User Group 
* GNU/Linux User Group at Cal 
 
> The results are strict due to trademark issues, but the name should
> simply be registered as "Linux Users Group".

well, the policy just makes no sense - it prevents student
organizations from signifying any kind of affiliation with the
university.

Here are some allowed, and disallowed student group names,
according to http://campuslife.berkeley.edu/orgs/new-group

    EXAMPLES:

    * Public Speaking Group at Berkeley – APPROVED
    * Public Speaking Group of Berkeley – APPROVED
    * Public Speaking Group at UC Berkeley – NOT APPROVED
    * Public Speaking at Cal – NOT APPROVED
    * Berkeley Public Speaking Group – NOT APPROVED
    * Cal Public Speaking Group – NOT APPROVED
    * California Public Speaking Group – NOT APPROVED
    * Public Speaking Group at California – NOT APPROVED
    * Public Speaking Group, Berkeley – NOT APPROVED
    * Berkeley Campus Public Speaking – NOT APPROVED

so if at most we're allowed to call the group "Linux User Group
at/of Berkeley" - there's already a BerkeleyLUG - it meets on
Sundays and has no affiliation with the university.

Anyway, the fact that "GNU/Linux User Group at Cal" group name
has already been approved - we can just continue to use that,
but like Michael (see below), this is the short version of my
opinion on this matter.


> Let me know if you'd like to follow up or have any questions or concerns.

Would you be able to make it to either the BUUG or BerkeleyLUG
meetings on Thursday and Sunday, respectively (see Michael's
notes on the matter below).

Michael Paoli, on 2011-04-19 17:44,  wrote:
> [trying to not be too redundant :-)][1]
> 
> Thanks Paul, et. al.[1]
> 
> Sounds like keeping CalLUG alive / reviving it is generally a good idea.
> If feasible, keeping the same name may also be good - but having a
> "Plan B" for an alternate name, in case the original can't still be used,
> sounds like a good idea.  (At least that's short version of my opinion
> on the name bits).
> 
> As both BUUG and the
> Berkeley Linux Users Group http://www.berkeleylug.com/
> both meet again within the week (Th and Su respectively),
> perhaps it may also be useful to discuss it there, and then
> follow-up on list(s) to see if there's consensus (or approximation
> thereof).
 
Sounds like a plan, see you Thursday.

> In the meantime, also taking any necessary steps to keep CalLUG from
> totally disappearing (e.g. the mail list), sounds good.

The fine folks over at UC Berkeley IST already made me the list
admin for both lists, here's some more information about them.

There are 116 addresses subscribed to callug_announce at lists.berkeley.edu
There are 17 addresses subscribed to callug_discuss at lists.berkeley.edu. 

> Anyway, sounds like there are definitely some good possibilities and
> opportunities for synergy, etc.
> 
> footnotes/references/excerpts:
> 1. see "thread" on:
> http://www.weak.org/pipermail/buug/2011-April/date.html


best,
-- 
Paul Ivanov
http://pirsquared.org | GPG/PGP key id: 0x0F3E28F7
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://buug.org/pipermail/buug/attachments/20110419/901cfae7/attachment.sig>