[UCLA-LUG] The squeaky LUG nuts get the grease

[FASHEH,MARK JAMES]

A quick correction in my old email....  I guess this is why I'm not an
english major!
	--Mark


------------
Mark James Fasheh
mfasheh@ucla.edu

On Thu, 16 Sep 1999, FASHEH,MARK JAMES wrote:

> Absolutely.  A protagonistic attidute towards the STC will get us nowhere.
> Also, I'm not sure if the LUG is the proper organization to deal with
> this.  If people from the LUG want to meet with the Admins, great.  I
> don't feel though that they should be representing the LUG at those
> meetings.  There are several reasons why I say that.  1) Not everyone in
> the LUG feels the same way about their policies, or is even affected by
> them.  A significantly large number of people in fact, that I don't
> believe a LUG presence at one of these meetings would be representative of
> the groups attitude towards this.  2)  We are a linux users group, not a
> policy lobbying group (whatever that means).  I don't think that this sort
> of action lies within our defined purpose.  3)  This is not a linux only
> rule.  Yes, lots of linux users would like static IP's, but I'm sure alot
> of NT, Solaris, etc. people want one too.  People who want to take action
> towards the STC should do it on behalf of all these people, and not the
> LUG.  Anyways, all this is of course, IMHO, but I really feel that our
> group has been taking a protagonistic attitude towards much of UCLA,
                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
hehe..  I meant:          antagonistic 

> without realizing that we are (like it or not) first, and foremost, a part
> of the UCLA community.  (Who do you think gives us our resources?).
> 	--Mark
> 

Hopefully that sentence is a little clearer now...
	--Mark


> 
> ------------
> Mark James Fasheh
> mfasheh@ucla.edu
> 
> On Thu, 16 Sep 1999, Glenn Micah Glazer wrote:
> 
> > Does anyone know what percent of dorm users have a need/want for a static
> > IP?  
> > 
> > Does anyone know what percent of administrative complaints are filed
> > by Linux users?
> > 
> >                 ******
> > 
> > Let me be the first to say that I don't like the way that STC handles its
> > administrative policies, but I think that I can see them being rather
> > upset with us as well.  We bitch.  A lot.  We consistently hammer at the
> > edges of legal behaviour, we require a great deal more of sysadmin time
> > than Joe Dorm Bruin and we are, to boot, a distinct minority.  On their
> > side of the table, we are a time-consuming irritant.
> > 
> > What I suggest is that we find our faculty sponsor in a hurry (like that
> > anonymous CS prof - who is this person?) and then start a round of
> > diplomatic meetings with the STC.  The point of these meetings is not to
> > achieve some specific rule change, but rather to break down the walls we
> > have built.  We need to assure the STC that we are not going to run havoc
> > with their network and our sponsor can assure them that there are
> > legitimate coursework processes behind our requests.  If we can turn this
> > around to the point where the STC sees us as friends and safe users (*and*
> > we see them as friends), I think that all of us will spend a lot lesss
> > time lobbying them over specifics.
> > 
> > I am more than willing to volunteer to serve on such an envoy.
> > 
> > Best,
> > 
> > Glenn
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > UCLALUG Linux mailing list - Linux@linux.ucla.edu
> > http://linux.ucla.edu/mailman/listinfo/linux
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> UCLALUG Linux mailing list - Linux@linux.ucla.edu
> http://linux.ucla.edu/mailman/listinfo/linux
> 
>