I believe the issue of justifying the effort involved in organizing these events would be resolved if people could more easily attend. As it is, quite a few people seem disinclined to attend simply because of the location. The location can stay the same but I think that attendance will remain an issue then and you'll be left scratching your head. Worst case, you move to a more central location and people still don't show up. So be it, you go back to the West-end. However, it's quite obvious that attendance is an issue, so why not shake things up and take the risk? I know I'll be attending the first meeting that is accessible and more inclined to get involved. While that's just my take, I've seen the same sentiment echoed by several people throughout the various threads. Jeff On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 9:00 AM, John C Nash <nashjc [ at ] uottawa [ dot ] ca> wrote: > The two topics that seem to have generated most response relating to the > future of OCLUG are > - specialist vs generalist meeting topics > - location of meetings > > The former is a perennial split, and there is likely no universal > resolution, though it is > possible -- and definitely part of current Board's intention, but not > always within our > abilities -- to provide some of each. > > The latter requires availability. In an earlier post I mentioned previous > sites (and > forgot OPL, where we had poor parking, tossed out before 9, but central). > A central site > with good bus, good parking, and close to good roads (417) would be ideal. > Is there > somewhere that won't cost us more than our donations cover? > > The location is a compromise. Moreover, it is a very demanding task to > organize. > The amount work involved in arranging place and speakers is one of the > negatives of > serving, and made less attractive when attendance is low. > > JN > _______________________________________________ > Linux mailing list > Linux [ at ] lists [ dot ] oclug [ dot ] on [ dot ] ca > http://oclug.on.ca/mailman/listinfo/linux >