All,
It seems that there is growing tension between both ShefLUG and
SlugBug, with various gambits being thrown open on all sides. However,
the latest accusation of censorship however has basically caused me to
question the way this list is ran, and the LUG organised.
From what I can tell, SlugBug has no quarrel with ShefLug as an entity
in its own right, but more with a particular individual. On the other
hand, this person has some unknown complaint with SlugBug. On this
alone I feel it is only right that a number of responses are required
from the LUG organiser(s).
The LUG is managed (it seems) solely by Richard, therefore I ask from
him the following:
1. Are people being censored. If so why?
2. Who actually moderates this list. If there is only one list
administrator, why? As it would make better sense for the list to be
administered by at least two people - this would then allow for:
a) Cover, should one list moderator be unavailable (illness,
holiday etc)
b) Proper oversight to ensure list powers are not abused.
3. If there are decisions or other topics of conversation that affect
the LUG happening at meetings, I request that these are formally
minuted and passed on to the rest of the list. Many of us cannot make
meetings on a regular basis, thus thus would seem to make sense. This
stems from the comment that "No one is telling me what Slug-bug is and
at the last meeting I was told by the ShefLUG members to ignore it and
not to take any notice of it". How many people were at the meeting,
and was it a representitive sample? In hindsight, just ignoring
SlugBug seems to be the wrong course given the amount of press this is
getting on the list.
If there are other people involved with the running on ShefLUG or the
running of the list, it would be prudent for them to make themselves
known, as a further contact regarding any administration issues.
Linux and GNU is meant to present openness and sharing. All I have
seen of late is backbiting and snapping. A full response to the above
points will set my (and possibly others) mind at ease, and hopefully
Sheffield can move on and put this horrid episode behind.
Richard -- for the sake of the continued health of the list, you need
to be more open about how the LUG is being organised, as at the moment
it that any complaints either fall on deaf ears, or illicit a response
via private mail, with a result that someone ends up being booted off
with no useful explanation. I'm sure everyone on this list will
acknowledge the effort put in with the seminars and events that are
organised, however these issues need to be resolved before any other
people start resigning, and affecting the quality and/or experienece
of the list members. I do not delight in having to post this, however
the current events have only made me feel rather disillusioned with
the list.
Regards,
Chris...
Chris