| |
In lugnet.loc.au, Kerry Raymond writes:
>
> > Also a thought on LegOz organisation...instead of states, how about • regions:
> > QLD and NT => northern
> > NSW and ACT => Central
> > Tas and Vic => Southern
> > WA and SA => Western
> > NZ and other countries in region => Eastern
>
> I think this might be a slightly heavy-weight organisation for the numbers
> of people involved! For example, I don't there are enough Qlders and NTers
> for a separate Northern group. Also, unless people live within 1-2 hours
> drive of each other, they are unlikely to be able to get together anyway. I
> really think that regional groups have to be more city-based than
> state-based for any kind of real-life interaction.
>
> As "proof", I point to the lugnet.loc.au.* newsgroups. Other than the AU
> group itself, Sydney is the only group with any significant traffic levels;
> other cities get the odd spurt of enthusiasm but no really sustainable
> levels of traffic. My interpretation of this is that, apart from Sydney, the
> rest of us are fairly thinly spread across the country.
>
> Why not just start with LegOz for all Australia (and any of our neighbours
> who want to be involved)? If/when regional clusters of people find
> themselves getting together (either electronically through a lugnet group or
> in real-life), then consider forming a subgroup (e.g. Studs). I think that's
> a simpler and more organic approach than establishing a large hierarchy
> that's not sustainable.
What about three groups ?
1.NSW and QLD and New Zealand(if they want).
2.VIC and TAS.
3.WA
Jane from SA can decide between 2 and 3.
The separate group fro WA is because they are quite isolated, nothing personal
pete.w <aquanaut@optusnet.com.au>
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
5 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
