[buug] Reviving CalLUG

[Rick Moen]

I inadvertently ignored some of what Paul said.  (Apologies: 
I'm jet-lagged.)

Quoting Paul Ivanov (pi at berkeley.edu):

> 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).

Sorry to report, I have some conflicting commitments, and also need to
do a whole lot of catch on matters have have waited while my wife and I
were on holiday in Europe for a couple of weeks.


> 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. 

That's actually a little astonishing for a long-dormant mailing list to
have that many vetted addresses.

I say 'vetted' because lists.berkeley.edu appears to (nowadays) run GNU
Mailman (with which I'm intimately familiar), replacing the antique
majordomo setup originally present.  Unless configured not to do so,
Mailman checks the deliverability (using VERP) of all subscribed addresses 
periodically.

FYI, the original mailing list host was brain.cs.berkeley.edu.  Then, it
was callug.cs.berkeley.edu, and finally the current lists.berkeley.edu
(which is of course no longer CalLUG-specific).

Originally, there were three mailing lists:

callug-announce
callug-general
callug-help

These were later pruned to the current two.  Which is just as well.
(A common error in new LUGs is to go hog-wild with creation of too
many channels of communication, most of which then languish for lack of
critical mass.)



Anyway, reverting to a prior subtopic_  I could write a book about
characteristic psychopathologies of LUGs (and some of that is already in
the Linux User Group HOWTO), which is a minor variation on the
psychopathologies of geekdom generally.  One of the many things I notice
-- which I mention because I'm sure it will come up -- is that LUG
social circles tend to freeze collective action through endless
debate.[1]  In particular, there's a strong tendency for the leadership
to sit on their hands as long as anyone has any objection whatsoever to
something that has been proposed or announced.

For example, suppose you set about reviving a LUG at Cal, look over
which nights nearby groups of interest meet to spot conflicts
(http://linuxmafia.com/bale/ might help -- yr. welcome), and announce
'OK, looks like 3rd Wednesday nights are good.  I've talked to
administration, and we'll be reserving a room in Soda Hall, formal
announcement to come.'

Nine times out of ten, a Pavlovian response will kick in, impelling
several people to say '3rd Wednesdays don't work for me', as if that
were a deal-breaker.  Morever, it's common for this to get taken
seriously, i.e., for people to tacitly act as if 3rd Wednesdays were
thereby rendered unacceptable -- even if there's no special reason to
think the speaker would ever meaningfully contribute.

Thus, the point:  Don't even try to make every featherless biped with an
opinion happy.  You shouldn't (IMO) try to run a democracy among
everyone capable of typing into an MUA.  You should (IMO) arrange
matters to the maximum convenience and satisfaction of the small
minority who do the group's work.


You mentioned that UCB's rules require four UCB-qualified signatories.
By a no doubt Deeply Meaningless Coincidence[TM], I wrote on 
http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Linux_PR/newlug.html :

   7. You need a core of several Linux enthusiasts.

   LUGs have succeeded wonderfully on the strength of ongoing efforts
   from as few as four energetic and inquisitive people. That's really
   all you need, but one or two are not enough. E-mail is terrific for
   coordination.

   Your core enthusiasts don't need any Linux knowledge initially, but
   must be "self-starters", and must have Internet access and know how to
   use it well.

Silicon Valley Linux User Group is currently limping along with the work
of about -- ta-da -- four active volunteers, for example.  It works well
enough.

That's about all for now.  As Pascal said, 'I am sorry for the length of
my letter, but I had not the time to write a short one.'



[1] The Irony Fairy may strike me dead for saying this, but you will
find that most useful input and participation, with a minimum of bizarre
interference, gratuitous ideology, and impractical notions, comes from
in-person interaction rather than from strangers talking at you over the
Internet (says the stranger talking at you over the Internet).