[lug] BLUG Planning for 2002 and beyond (fwd)

[J. Wayde Allen]

On Tue, 11 Dec 2001, Glen Ashton wrote:

> It has been the case that BLUG has needed a Board of Directors for a long
> time, not because you're not great- you are, but because it would make the
> organization more effective and prevent burn-out.

I agree that we've needed a board of directors for a long time, and I've
suggested we move in that direction off and on over the years.  At the
original formative meetings I did suggest that we elect officers and
create an administrative group, but at that time people simply got up and
left.  Evidently the timing for creating such a structure wasn't
right.  Perhaps now is the time?  I've been steering this group for
something like seven years, and to me it has become fairly routine.  We
have the mailing list and we have our meetings, but it seems that the
group could do a great deal more.  I just can't devote full time to this
effort, and with my new job responsibilities I've been stretched
increasingly thin.  For me at least, I think it is time for a change.  

> I think that the "membership" should elect a board.  First, we need to
> define what " membership" means.

The definition that I have always used is that a member is someone
subscribed to this mailing list.  After all, this is where most of the
BLUG activity takes place.  This of course is just what I've used
though.  The group could decide something else.

> As far as NIST is concerned, I would like to know how we tell our tax
> supported institution to permit a community based technology group to use
> a facility that I already pay for.

You could always contact the site directors office, but I don't know how
effective that would be, nor am I certain that this wouldn't do more harm
than good.  I can tell you that many of us internal to the organization
feel much as you do.

> Just some thoughts.  NIST is a great organization, but in these odd times,
> we need our great organizations to make a statement that they belong to
> the people and that the "enemies of freedom" aren't going to win by
> preventing the free exchange of ideas about technology, which is in the
> public interest.

I agree.  I can tell you that there is some movement in this direction,
but that it so far seems pretty meager.

> FYI, an official CU student organization can use meeting space for free,
> and can use it all year round.  The real issue is that their is ratio
> criteria for the number of students vs. number of public.

Yes, but as you note we need the students to make this work.  I do believe
that they are there, but this is one of those areas that I simply don't
have the energy to pursue.  

That was part of the reason why we started meeting at CU in the first
place, but so far the results of this have been disappointing.  To make the
CU venue work we really need to engage both students and faculty.  I think
that this could be possible, but it would take some significant leg work,
lobbying, fenagling, wheeling and dealing, and good wholesome political
maneuvering.  Sure, I think I could do it, but I just don't have the
desire to force it through.  I've been hoping that others would pick up
the torch if this is the direction that people think we should go.

- Wayde
  (wallen at lug.boulder.co.us)

   --------------------------------------------------------
                        ISART 2002                          
    International Symposium on Advanced Radio Technologies 
      http://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/meetings/art/index.html  
   --------------------------------------------------------