[ale] future of ALE NW

[Geoffrey]

Christopher Gilbert wrote:

> I was not referring to the regular monthly meetings which are on ALE.org
> w/ speakers etc. 
> 
> Here I was referring to this organizational meeting in particular.  And
> I meant no sleight to those working hard to make these monthly meetings
> happen.  Did you miss understand me or just trying to point out that
> monthly meetings are promoted.

A little of both I guess.  First off, there were a select few folks 
involved in this meeting because from the onset, it was obvious that it 
was going to be difficult to get eveyone to the meeting.  Many 
conflicts.  As a matter of fact, the meeting time yesterday was the only 
time that fit with the four schedules of folks that really HAD to be 
there (Dr. Gaylor, Matthew, Dow and myself).  The expected attendees 
were representatives of KSU/LUG (Matthew M., Dr. Gayler, Dow Hurst), 
representatives for ALE (myself and Dow).  Emil was there as an 
interested student, but the meeting would have happened without him. 
Part of the reason he was there was because I had some cds I'd burned 
for him and it was a good way for us to hook up.

As for the monthly meetings, they are promoted on the list and on the 
ALE website.  As I noted, Dow is the only one doing any adv. at the school.
> 
> 
>>>My apologies if this meeting was publicized and I have my head up my
>>>arse, or if the meeting was not as I have characterized it.
>>
>>The attendees were primarily point people for various organizations. 
>>Myself and Dow as interested ALE members who were the primary 'creators' 
>>of the ALE meetings at KSU.  Matthew M. the new LUG president, Dr. 
>>Gaylor the LUG advisor and Emil Man, a KSU student who has been in 
>>attendance at various ALE NW meetings.  There was no intent in having a 
>>mass of people at the meeting as it was already quite difficult in 
>>getting schedules to mesh and have the meeting.
> 
> 
> I am not asking/expecting you to match my schedule or any other student
> who may have wanted to attend the organizational meeting. Just send a
> note to the L that is all I would ask and I have said as much to Matthew
> in the past.

It was not publicized on the list because of the need to meet soon and 
the scheduling issues that already existed.  To be honest, I really 
couldn't afford the time, I've got too much going on right now, but made 
the effort in order to try and resolve this thing.  Could it have been 
posted to the list, yes.  Would it have made any difference in the 
outcome of the meeting if others had attend, I don't think so.  Your 
input is certainly welcome.  What I'd like to see is more students get 
involved and the lug become a REAL entity.

> Agreed however not advertising an organizational meeting is a real
> turn-off to those who might want to be involved in reconstituting the
> student LUG.

I'm not with the LUG. It was not a LUG meeting.  There was 
representatives of the LUG at the meeting.  The meeting was regarding 
ALE meetings, not the LUG.  The LUG has been pretty much non-existent, 
but that's an issue for you, the students to deal with.  I have no 
involvement in the LUG other than the linkage between it and the ALE 
meetings which is required by the school.  I think it would be a very 
good idea for interested students to have a LUG organizational meeting.

> Anyway back to a more fruitful comments.  
> I would be willing to organizing a survey of KSU students to in an
> effort to judge the level of interest and to elicit suggestions. 
> If ppl think that would be helpful. 

I think that would be great.  I think any further student involvment in 
this effort is wonderful and a necessity.

-- 
Until later, Geoffrey	esoteric at 3times25.net

Building secure systems inspite of Microsoft