[BALUG-Admin] Administrivia: various bits (dinner "price"/"gift", panel, etc.) ... and if nobody objects :-}
Thu Apr 1 05:30:21 PDT 2010
Administrivia: various bits (dinner "price"/"gift", panel, etc.) ...
and if nobody objects :-}
Dinner "price"/"gift" - hopefully someday we'll be non-profit for tax
purposes & such (on our "to do" list). Towards that end, and in the
meantime ... I'm tweaking language/description a bit on dinner "price"
- essentially stating it as "donation" - e.g. 'you give us donation of
$13 cash, we give you gift of' ... unless/until we're non-profit for
tax purposes, I'm trying to specifically avoid word/term "donation" -
to avoid potential confusion or misunderstanding. I may put some
explanatory bit(s) on web site/page somewhere and/or in future
announcements and such (I'm open to suggestions on exactly how/where to
best do that and/or specific suggestions on wording).
Giveaway items and raffle/drawing items. There's been a (slight?) bit
of debate(/controversy) as to whether or not those not paying for dinner
ought to be in such (e.g. "door prize"/"raffle") drawings or not. I
think it's at least a fair bit a judgement call, but in general I'm
inclined to mostly:
for "door prize"/"raffle" drawing items - those are for folks that
"pay" for dinner (rationale: help encourage folks to do so - and thus
help with our patronage of the restaurant, also, part of that funding
often goes towards or covers dinner for speakers - and it's often the
speaker that's making those "raffle"/drawing items available).
Of course there will be at least some exceptions (e.g. speaker brings
"door prize" items, and wants to award them for correctly answering
As for free giveaway items (e.g. typically CDs, magazines, other random
items - typically in quantities likely to meet or more than meet demand)
- I'd say in general free and available to anyone who attends - "paid"
for dinner or not ... but if demand exceeds or likely exceeds supply -
then in such case, typically give at least first preference to "paid"
folks. Might not all be 100% fair, but such is life. I'm certainly
willing to hear and consider opinions to the contrary (and/or in
BALUG is run by ... well, it's not particularly formally organized, ...
like many/most more loosely organized groups/associations, it's mostly
"run" by those that show up and/or do the work ... so ... opinions will
be gladly considered ... but may be weighted by participation (past
and/or present). So, ... anyone wants more say, ... show up and/or do
more stuff for BALUG :-).
"working in the business" panel discussion thingy - I sent basic
information earlier (see also below references/excerpts) to
In addition to that noted earlier:
I'll likely go ahead and get some relevant bits on the main BALUG web
page too - again, no specific locked-in date ... yet, ... but I'm
mostly inclined to target it for the BALUG June or July (that may also
be a bit more optimal for "new grads" - those are also the two meeting
date options that can be selected on form/survey/application thingy -
read on) meeting this year, and be able to make a go/no-go decision
just before our April (or May for July) meeting this year. Hopefully if
we get more information out sooner, we can line up ample panelists and
potential/alternate panelists well ahead of time, so we can pull it off
relatively smoothly. I also have put together a survey/application
form to "apply" to be on the panel (or to be moderator of it) ...
haven't quite finished that yet - a few more tweaks, and I'll have it
out ... might run it by y'all first, before "releasing" it (probably
don't want to change it once it's placed out there - using
BALUG history! Once upon a time, I mentioned some
test/draft/proof-of-concept pages for BALUG I'd been working on,
... anyway, at the time, I mentioned them a wee bit (e.g.:
) ... got (as I seem to recall), a bit of feedback, but not all that
much (and none recently) ... anyway, I'm inclined to proceed at least a
bit in getting some of this stuff into production, ... most notably (at
least as first step), getting the "history"/past page:
into production ... but not precisely in its present (test/mock-up)
have to fix up a bunch of URLs (e.g. due to some site shuffling and
I wouldn't change the color scheme or logo ... yet
(on the logo, I'd also want to get the fortune cookie worked into
any revised/updated production main logo),
I may also mostly introduce it most recent first, and with relatively
complete bits first (and where necessary skipping stuff we can't get to
at least just yet).
Anyway, let me know what y'all think, ... or ... hearing no objections
:-) ... in any case, I think making BALUG's history much more visible
may rather significantly help BALUG in general, and give us quite a bit
more visibility (and yes, as one may see, I've generally been tracking
past meeting stuff fairly well, and rebuilding/reconstructing history
as and where reasonably feasible (some bits are easier to piece back
together again, than others ... hopefully eventually we'll have most
all of it).
We now return you to your regularly scheduled Internet.
> Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 23:11:55 -0700
> From: "Michael Paoli" <Michael.Paoli@cal.berkeley.edu>
> Subject: Re: "Working in the Business" panel discussion @ BALUG -
> Jun or Jul ?
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Thanks for the feedback/thoughts.
> I've set up alias:
> for helping to facilitate communication on this.
> Initially it's "seeded" with (is presently an alias to)
> If(/when) anyone wants to be specifically added to (or removed from)
> alias, just let me know and I'll take care of that.
> Note that like email@example.com, the
> firstname.lastname@example.org alias will be publicly exposed - so it will
> pick up at least some spam and such too. It may also get relatively
> "chatty" as we work to organize the panel.
> Of course once we're done with the panel (at least for 2010) we can
> get rid of that alias (it's intended to be "temporary"). I did
> also earlier get rid of the alias:
> which had been used earlier for similar purpose
> (ended up not doing panel discussion for 2009-07-21 - had
> insufficient lead time with the earlier attempt).
> As to scope - I'm thinking at least somewhat broader ... initially,
> anyway. Depending what we can come up with in terms of panelists,
> and what areas folks are most interested in seeing covered, I think we
> can then shift the focus/emphasis as may be most appropriate.
> A series of such discussions/panels? I don't think we'll want to
> do it *too* regularly ... but I'm gustimating if it goes rather to quite
> well - perhaps do something relatively similar every 2 to 3 years or so?
> ... and could always adjust/change focus/emphasis, and perhaps the
> way it's presented/done, and balance/mix of panelists, etc., so each
> time it would be "different enough" to continue to be quite interesting.
> ... anyway, just my thoughts/guestimates on other future ones, ...
> have to make it well through the first one first. :-)
> Anyway, I'll have the initial bits (but not locked in date yet) about
> panel discussion in next BALUG announcement (which I plan to have out
> today - before midnight PDT). ... I'll also do some administrivia/etc.
> related email(s) (to the "admin" list) after I have the announcement out
> (just to catch folks up on some relevant details/background in general,
> Quoting jim <email@example.com>:
> > good lesson learned.
> >i suggest dreaming up some focii:
> >* data center stuff
> >* open source use
> >* other
> > we might be able to cook up a series, each
> >with only a few panelists, but concentrated on
> >a particular topic.
> >On Sun, 2010-03-21 at 17:00 -0700, Michael Paoli wrote:
> >>I'm tentatively thinking of trying again to do
> >>"Working in the Business" panel discussion
> >>@ BALUG for June or July
> >>... really needs a fair bit if advance lead time to coordinate, etc.
> >>I'm thinking 2+ month minimum, e.g. make a go / no-go decision on June
> >>prior to the April BALUG meeting, and go / no-go decision for July prior
> >>to the May BALUG meeting.
> >>I think key thing that didn't (quite) work last time, was too short
> >>a lead time, too many folks (panelists) to coordinate, and not enough
> >>alternates (alternate available panelists).
More information about the BALUG-Admin