[GNUz] Re: Naming Groups was: UTP Cables from Solid Core

[Rik Tindall]

Nick Rout wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 08:20:25 +0000
> Jim Cheetham <jim@inode.co.nz> wrote:
>   
>> On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 02:52:25PM +1300, nick@rout.co.nz wrote:
>>     
>>> Anyway there probably is a need for a CLUG meeting in which licensing and
>>> the current debates between "Free" and "Open" (and indeed "closed") are
>>> discussed and explained. I suggest you as a speaker. Would you be up for
>>> it?
>>>       
>> I wish I could be there for that :-) I think you guys could benefit
>> from a more formal debate structure for that sort of thing - i.e. to
>> submit a motion that "This house believes we should do more to value the
>> contribution of RMS" ...
>>     

How about crowning him with an honorary halo - oops! - too late!!

Nah, something practical like a group name-change is much more apposite.

- That'd make for a worthy topic + motion (& bring it back on subject).

The real difficulty is the investment already standing in the 'CLUG' brand.

> Yes I was wondering about a more formal debate. Reminds me of school.
>
> As long as people remember that in a debate you argue for the side you are given, dispassionately. Maybe Rik should be put in the negative team. Nothing sharpens the argument like having to argue against your own normal position.
>   

I said earlier I didn't want to argue any position, let alone two ;-)

> Lawyers know this methodology well: on the same day I might act for a finance company suing a bad debtor, and a bad debtor defending against a (different) finance company, running two sides of the same argument. Its healthy to do so.
>   

So is taking cod liver oil, but you don't see anyone lining up for it. :-))

-- 
Rik