[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 10:20:24 +0000 Simon Waters <simon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It is, as is the second thread started by Paul saying there was a consensus on GLUG, where you replied. Sorry if you got overlooked, I shall pay penance in real ale. However there does appear to be a general consensus in favour of renaming. Although I didn't quite decipher Grant's position from the posts I read.
I take it the snippet below is what you're referring to. Notice the tags :D My position on it is that I don't really mind what we call ourselves since it's what we do that counts. You can take it that I'm not *disagreeing*. We could call ourselves the LGFUOGFAOSSAT (Local Group for Users of GNU, Free and Open Source Softwares and Technologies) if it really came to it, although I have to admit that perhaps it would be a bit of a mouthful compared to LUG and GLUG! Consider my position as: Abstention. I have no seriously strong opinions on either way. Grant. ===Taken from an post in an earlier discussion=== <devil's advocate> Since the vast majority of problems encountered (by the general populous) are not actually with the Kernel, wouldn't it be more advisable therefore the rename the LUG a GUG? A GNU-User Group? Where should it stop? Should I recommend to the LPI that, since the majority of issues covered in their repertoire of questions are to do with applications written by GNU/FSF and that only a small percentage of it actually covers the Linux kernel, should it not be renamed the GNU Professional Institute? </devil's advocate> -- Artificial intelligence is no match for nuratal stidutipy. -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG Mail majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxx with "unsubscribe list" in the message body to unsubscribe.