Re: [Fsfe-uk] Re: AFFS workings

[MJ Ray]

Alex Hudson <address@hidden> wrote:
> [...] which was our most successful Expo by most/any? metric [...]

Ho, that's quite amusing, with the initial views on targets.
Anyway, Oct 2004 on some metrics and Oct 2003 on others, but
small sample caution still applies. The 2004 results were called
"confidential" so I am surprised you refer to them on a public
list. Hardly fair when most people can't see it.

How has that success been used?

It's disappointing if affs-project is what ctte want to see.
All can visit http://www.affs.org.uk/pipermail/affs-project/
to see flames, unanswered offers of and calls for help, and a
particularly courageous attempt by Richard Smedley to mediate
between a need for a budget and a refusal to budget -- and me
losing my temper in face of sustained opposition, 'tis true.

> > I think there are a lot of things which AFFS could be supporting:
> >  - community events like LUG Radio
> >  - cataloguing/coordination activities like British languages l10n
> >  - local groups and branches
> > but all need ctte to be more open and vocal than it has been.
> Maybe. Certainly, being more open (not sure about vocal) would help. I'm
> not sure it's the only thing needed for AFFS to support those things,

Not "would help" nor "only" but it's needed for sustainable action.

> though. For example, languages l10n is an activity much better done by
> developers who have a handle on the problem. Without their expertise, I
> don't really know where AFFS can add value. [...]

There were two on ctte last summer. Requests were ignored (a
catalogue and Welsh Language Board strategy for two examples),
two isn't enough to approve things and both have resigned now.
I've since got hold of the catalogue to post to
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/proj/britlang/ for now.

> Similar problems with local groups and branches - actually, I would go
> as far to say that we *shouldn't* be doing that, and it should be left
> up to the LUGs. [...]

Sometimes LUGs don't exist in an area, or people want a group
to be under the AFFS banner. We should welcome that as a
valuable outreach and recruitment opportunity. One new group
was approved, but didn't get any help yet, as far as I know.
There's no support offering for existing groups, is there?

I want to see wider "supporter" and "referrer" networks as
discussed before[1], but even non-member newsletter recipients
were removed recently, amidst talk of turning membership
handling into a state machine automaton. That's heading in
the wrong direction IMO. AFFS must be more human, make more
personal connections, inspire and provoke more good activity,
to achieve its aims.

[1] by ian in http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/fsfe-uk/2003-05/msg00123.html
and Andrew Savory in
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/fsfe-uk/2003-07/msg00089.html

-- 
MJ Ray (slef), K. Lynn, England, email see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/