🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1992Mar10.005300.26091@megadata.uucp> andrew@megadata.mega.oz.au (Andrew McRae) writes:

>It may have something to do with changes in AUUG (a continuing
>desire to make AUUG palatable to `commercial Open Systems' people), and
>the possibly shrinking technical audience it is addressing...

>One has only to look at the distressing way vendors
>and commercial `our system is more open than theirs' presentations
>dominated the last AUUG conference to realise that priorities have changed
>and the technical (i.e interesting) nature of the conference was
>greatly diminished. I have come to the conclusion that the old days
>of AUUG are dead and buried, and from now on things are going to be
>different. 

I for one hope that we can wrest control of AUUG back from the marketing
types who dominate it now and give it back to the technical members.

AUUG seems to be turning from being a technical UNIX group to an
"Open Systems" marketing group. It's an attractive strategy for the
"Open Systems" vendors, actually - get some of their staff involved,
gradually change the focus of the group, and before too long you have created
a marketing group that meets your requirements *and* that already has 
hundreds of members. A lot cheaper than setting one up from scratch yourself.
As a piece of political intrigue, my hat is off to those people behind it. 
As an AUUG member, however, I hope (and expect) to see some heads roll at the 
next election. (Actually, I tell a lie - I am so disgusted at AUUG that I
didn't renew my membership for 1992).

>What should be done then? I see a great hope in the state
>conferences - these seem to be in the old spirit of AUUG conferences,
>no sales pitches, strong techo stuff etc. Should this herald changes
>in the way AUUG operates? I am not convinced that AUUG should be
>presenting itself to the commercial world as the body for representing
>all Open Systems concerns. If this occurs, AUUG may well become an
>hollow shell, echoing with the empty mantras of the vendors as they
>chant their Open Systems gospel, deserted by the people who formed
>the original foundations.

I wish *I* had said that. Couldn't have put it better myself.

>As someone from the committee said at the AGM, `If we don't do it, then
>someone else will'. As far as I am concerned, let someone else do it,
>because I am not interested in where they are going.

Ditto.

>(I will also mail this to the AUUG exec)

What you *should* do is print it out and snail mail it. If the committee
is acting responsibly there is no way it can ignore a physical letter
delivered to it with a request "To be presented to the committee
at its next meeting". (The next committee meeting is real soon now,
maybe a FAX would be better). I have written a letter in this form to the
committee basically detailing the points you listed above; the more that
they receive (especially all at once), the better.

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
 | Adrian Booth					|	                  |
 | Adrian Booth Computing Consultants		|	Ph: (09) 385 1003 |
 | 1/83 Bay View Tce., Claremont WA 6010	|	abcc@DIALix.oz.au |
 | AUSTRALIA                                    |                         |
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------