> -----Original Message----- > From: Jeremy [mailto:tclug at lizakowski.com] > Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 3:09 PM > To: tclug-list at mn-linux.org > Subject: Re: [tclug-list] Question > > > >for over 20 years I know of personally (and more told by > >designated historians of the associations) ... > >with local membership of about 20,000 > > I tried to improve things for 5 years as > > VP of an umbrella group > > So, given that you managed 20,000 members as part of an umbrella meta > organization, how would you like to see TCLUG ran? "Ran" differently. Successfully. TCLUG will probably muddle along as is for a long time. Didn't say I/we "managed" them. You're making control assumptions or seeking them. Some of us may make a proposal and start optional alternative someday, but that that would be a form that learns from history, and tries not to repeat it or copy "this" TCLUG (synergism would be nice). > Do you wish us to resemble that structure and scale? "Us?" Things might be more forked up. Not sure who's forking what :-) You're making assumptions about "structure", containment, and control that may not be true or necessary or desirable. Large scale only makes sense as an evolutionary process if/when successful enough to grow, motivate, and sustain up to whatever level is "natural". Let's drop this "org philosophy" and idle speculation and get back to Linux topics. Chuck