On Thursday 08 November 2007 09:35:18 am Jeremy wrote: > Most of the arguments sound like fluff covering up the real argument. > > The core complaint seems to be that UofM didn't play ball in the past, with > whatever was trying to be accomplished. > > It then seems presumed that any future dealings with the U will result in > the same results. > > The rest of the complaints seem to be attempts to persuade others that the > U is bad. Then add a promotional call for people to bail and hang out > elsewhere. > > In some senses, it feels like we are being asked to extend a boycott of > some form, due to former issues from a different organization. It's good > to be aware of issues, and learn from them. But in my experience, the U > has been very kind and helpful so far. > > Perhaps if TCLUG sought bigtime corporate sponsorship we would run into > these issues, but I don't think open source is a good match for such > corporate influence. > > Jeremy For what it's worth, TCBUG has never had a problem with meetings at the U of M. People do seem to like the central location as being equally unfair to everyone, and we've never had a problem with meeting cancellations, room availability, political wranglings or the like....although we've always facilitated our meetings through the ACM, so maybe that matters. TCBUG's democraphics generally leans towards the 'old bitter UNIX admin' scale of things, we do have a couple of students as members, but the vast majority of our membership is comprised of UNIX professionals. -- Thanks, Josh Paetzel PGP: 8A48 EF36 5E9F 4EDA 5A8C 11B4 26F9 01F1 27AF AECB -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://mailman.mn-linux.org/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20071108/969fbe31/attachment.pgp