evan@tellyx.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) (04/11/89)
In my last tome I described at length about the chasm I saw between the long-term goals of /usr/group/cdn and those of unix-unanimous, that I saw the two groups as serving the needs of vendors and users respectively, and with no middle ground. I ended by saying that there needs to be a "clean break" between the two. This time, I hope to balance the negativism of my last posting with some constructive ideas. I have read the replies and spoken to some of you, and I have shifted my attitude a bit, though my premises remain intact. I still maintain that Unix vendors (who now form the bulk of /u/g/c meetings) and experienced Unix users (who make up most of Unix Unanimous) have certain distinct goals. I agree with the view that there is a third constituency, novice end users and those just looking casually at Unix, which is not being welcomed by either group. I mentioned last time that there was no common ground between vendors and users. I realize now that that is merely the present state, but that some rather drastic measures are needed to convince the two sides that they have something in common. Indeed, though few may believe it, the experienced system administrators sometimes have something to learn from the marketers, just like salesmen can also pick up something or two from the admins. And, not only do both have something to share with the novices, but we most certainly have something to learn *from* the novices. So what's the answer? A *single* group which can appeal to the separate *and* the combined needs of the three groups. Yes, you heard me right. One unified group can accomplish this. Maybe. To be able to do so, in my view, some substantial changes are needed. Someone who comes to a /u/g/c meeting shouldn't be told to come back (to UofT) in two weeks to ask a technical question. Let's go back to the models I referred to in the last posting. A project I worked on some time ago required that I visit each of Toronto's large user groups. In addition, I have been a member of both LOGIC (the Toronto Apple group) and PCCT (the IBM PC group). Though these groups had quite different histories, their meeting formats were surprisingly similar. The meetings are split into two parts. The first part usually starts with a speaker of general interest, who has something to tell both the novice and 'old pro'. Then comes a few words from a board member regarding 'administrivia'. Next is an 'open mike', where anyone can get up and ask anything. (So far, so good. To this point, it sounds just like what happens at the present /u/g/c meetings. But the rest is different.) After a pause, the group breaks into 'special interest groups', each of which has a designated 'corner' of the meeting room and its own leader, who's often a board member. Often topics being addressed at these SIGs are pre-planned, sometimes they're just an informal "so what do you want to talk about" thing. (Sound familar?) That usually depends on the individual group leader. One of the SIGs is specifically for 'newusers', led by someone who's somewhat knowlegeable, and doesn't mind answering "so what is UUCP, anyway?" for six straight meetings, or explaining TCP/IP to someone who's just mastered disk formatting. The turnover here is heavy, as people quickly gravitate to more specific interests. Very often, some people just 'browse' among the various SIGs until they hear something that catches their ear. The meetings tend to last longer than either of the present /u/g/c or Unix-Unanimous groups. Most start at about 7 and go till past 10, and then some of the groups continue on at a pub or something beyond that. To me, the advantage of such a format, is that it allows the group as a whole to share some knowledge and common views, while acommodating the separate needs (and, it could be argued, personalities) of the various special interests within the group. At the same time, in different parts of the same room, the vendor SIG could be discussing the implications behind the OSF versus UI, the sysadmin SIG would be fielding the lastest questions on UUPC :-), and the newusers could be talking about the differences between OS/2 and Unix. Each SIG would have specific representation to the board, and each leader would be required to discuss some of what they're doing in the newsletter. (That way, the newsletter editor has a finite number of people to chase after :-). Look, we know that we have both the talent AND the energy to do this within the collective midst of the two groups. Araldo and Jim worked hard to put together the DMR project, so we can't say that the vendors in the group won't spend effort on something that suits their interests. I believe we can get the volunteers if we have specific tasks to be assigned. Some of what I'm describing might warrant further debate, as it involves changes to the group's charter. But there are some immediate steps the group could take to encourage its acceptance among all three of the contituencies I've described: 1) A larger meeting space, and longer hours for the meeting. This can be done within the Board of Trade - look at Club Mac, the Toronto Macintosh club, which opens a cash bar during the second half of its monthly meetings at the BofT. 2) Have /u/g/c affiliate with *both* /usr/group and Usenix. It's possible. 3) Appoint someone whose sole responsibility is to encourage novice users to come to the meetings, and deal with their questions and concerns while taking advantage of existing club resources. If nobody on the board wants this job, I'll do it. 4) Select a small committee, with representation from vendors, sysadmins and newusers, to study the feasability of recognizing and addressing the 'multi-SIG' nature of the group within /u/g/c's charter. 5) The group is definitely at a point where it requires at least a part-time administrative assistant, to help with the constant chores of mailings, meeting deadlines, keeping track of things. Might any corporate member have someone whose time they'd like to contribute? :-) Perhaps what these groups need, rather than separation, is a stronger confederation. Yet either is preferable to the status quo, if we are to develop a user organization which is truly relevant to those who are newly discovering Unix each day. Evan Leibovitch evan@telly.on.ca