[AUUG-Talk]: Re: AUUG: Time to pull the plug?

[Arjen Lentz]

Hi Steve, all,

On 14/09/2006, at 1:36 PM, Steve Landers wrote:
> Re the question of whether AUUG should merge or fold - that's  
> something we constantly ask ourselves (I certainly could find  
> things to do with the time currently devoted to AUUG). But while we  
> see diverse technical papers such as those in the conference it  
> gives us confidence that there is a role for AUUG, complementary  
> with the other computing groups, and albeit in quite a different  
> form than in the past.
>
> In many ways we see AUUG going back to its roots - focussing on the  
> technical content and less on the "show" (so to speak).

Any content that is not or could not be covered by LCA, SAGE-AU and  
the Melbourne dev con?

Mind you, I've been to the last three confs and it's been good; I'm  
also a speaker at the upcoming conference, and I'll be there. But  
that's not the point here.


I see some arguments float around in this thread that need serious  
questioning.

a) The fact that AUUG has served a very useful purpose in the past  
for many people, and that it has a fairly glorious history, is in  
itself irrelevant for a decision whether or not it should continue. A  
user group is not like an antique car that should be preserved in a  
museum. Either it's a living entity, or it can be put to rest.

b) When talking about whether the proprietary unix users are being  
served and would feel at home with other organisations, I suggest the  
following questions are worth being asked:
   1) Have these users attended the AUUG conference, mailing list or  
other activity in say the last 5 years?
   2) Has the conference over the last # years actually contained  
topics specific to proprietary unixes?
   3) Has AUUGN done any specific things for proprietary unixes?
   4) which of the local AUUG chapters are actually alive and do  
stuff not done by other local groups.
        (the QLD chapter has been quite dead for some time, but  
numerous other groups flourish.)

The above questions verify that perceived needs are *real* live needs  
and how it's been dealt with in recent times. Questions (2) and  
perhaps (3) may be particularly interesting in this respect.


Yes, the AUUG conference tends to have interesting topics. But it's  
also been shrinking for years, and I think that's a significant  
marker. Other conferences like LCA, SAGE-AU and the newish Melbourne  
devconf are popular and growing. From my perspective, the overlap is  
so significant that I have a tough time working out what the  
distinguishing factors are.
Why not take a moment to browse through the programs from the last  
few years, and see which topics would not fit at any of the other  
Australian conferences, and for what reason. See how things match up.


If it is deemed that the organisation serves a specific purpose, then  
using the above checks one should be able to prove this in an  
objective and quantifiable manner. I think the question is worth  
asking. Who has the data and will do the homework?


If the AUUG conference were the only reason, I don't think that would  
be good enough, considering the expenses involved in running a  
conference on the current scale. I realise LinuxAU primarily exists  
for LCA, however it now serves quite a few other purposes - plus LCA  
itself is so big that the overhead is dealt with adequately.
What I'm saying is that if it is found that specific topics are not  
covered by any of the other local conferences, and that's the only  
issue, then I'm sure that can be dealt with in cooperation with those  
other conferences. This will ensure better attendance figures and  
better value for attendees. After all, the point is not having a  
conference of organisation brand X, but providing a bundle of content  
that attendees want. Right?


Regards,
Arjen.
-- 
Arjen Lentz, Support Engineer / Trainer, MySQL AB
Based in Brisbane, Australia

MySQL support subscriptions @ www.mysql.com/network/
MySQL news & blogs @ www.planetmysql.org