Subject:
|
Re: Second BayLUG get-together (8/99) summary
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.loc.us.ca.sf
|
Date:
|
Thu, 12 Aug 1999 07:39:56 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Russell Clark <[rclark@]IHateSpam[telis.org]>
|
Viewed:
|
589 times
|
| |
|
|
> We decided that the half of the room closest to the windows would
> be the "OK to touch" area, with the "hands-off" models being in the
> back of the room. We also forgot to bring any "Please Do Not Touch"
> signs for tables, so we simply wrote it on the white boards along
> one wall, in the hands-off area. This seemed to work very well,
> as I heard many parents advising their kids to not touch models.
>
> All in all, I think the kids were better behaved, and the adults
> did keep a better eye on their kids that day. :-)
The kids dids were much more manageable this time.
> The train model and the VCR seemed to hold crowds the longest.
> The static models held some interest, and a few visitors even
> bought some of the older models from sellers, but the displays
> that moved, or were "active" seemed more interesting.
I am planning a moving set-up for next time.
> Something else that might have retained the visitors longer may
> have been an area for kids to play with LEGOs. Joe Greene's parts
> trading at the first meeting was really engaging for about 10 kids.
> We didn't have anything to pick up and play with at the second
> meeting, and I think we should try to have something more 'hands-on'
> for the November meeting. (Of course, I'll be playing with the
> train display, so I can't help much, unless we have shifts between
> watching displays and the kids area. :-)
We definitely need a "play area."
> 1) How formal do we want the meetings to be? Should we have an
> aganda portion of the meetings? (Maybe we do this when we first
> get to the room, and set up displays after the meeting?) Does
> anyone feel really strongly whether we should, or shouldn't
> have a 'formal' meeting part at each get-together?
I think we need a formal meeting. One thing I would like is a "Hi. I'm so
and so." I kept having to ask Zonker who people were.
> 2) Do we want to carry on the agenda in email, either in the BA-LEGO
> mail list (so we have an archive in the LUGNET SF newsgroup)?
> Or would we rather have a seperate list for club things? Is
> anyone strongly for or against having the dicussions in email,
> instead of waiting for the get-togethers?
I'm against the e-mail thing, however it will help non-attending members to
know what is going on.
> NEXT MEETING:
>
> We've discussed having the next meeting in November, with a Train theme.
> We may have a good chance at getting the room in Fremont if we reserve
> it soon (because the holidays are coming) but which weekend is best?
> Is Saturday the best day? Does anyone else want to look for a room
> in their city, and host a meeting? :-)
I like the train theme in November. Many people can shop off their
"Christmas trains." I hope to have a 4.5v train display ready for November.
Russell Clark
http://baylug.org/russellc/
ICQ: 39423705
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Second BayLUG get-together (8/99) summary
|
| (...) Do y'all think that the lack of a play area helped the kids be a bit more under control too? Note that I am not against the play area idea: on the contrary I'm for it. I'm just asking if it's true in your opinion. A play area might be a (...) (25 years ago, 12-Aug-99, to lugnet.loc.us.ca.sf)
| | | Third BayLUG get-together (11/99) planning
|
| I should have measured the height of the tables in Fukaya...how much is the heighth difference between those tables and my PNLTC table? :-) We can plan to take over a few tables for the trains. Yes, we should ponder over a layout (one or two loops, (...) (25 years ago, 12-Aug-99, to lugnet.loc.us.ca.sf)
|
4 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
