Subject:
|
Re: IBLTC
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains.org
|
Date:
|
Tue, 27 Feb 2001 20:19:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
538 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.trains.org, Eric Joslin writes:
> In lugnet.trains.org, Eric Kingsley writes:
> > In lugnet.trains.org, John Gerlach writes:
>
> > > Yea, I'll probably be flamed for this, and I accept that. I just wanted to
> > > bring up the question of what IOLTC member groups would expect from LEGO...
> >
> > Why should you get flamed? I thought is was a great, thought provoking
> > thread.
>
> Hmm.
>
> Well, as a fellow NELUG member, I have to admit that I am rather counter to
> the idea of a "meta-group" representing NELUG when facing any other
> organisation, espeically TLC. I am certainly not opposed to seeing some kind
> of forum where information flows between LUGs (or LTCs) but I would prefer
> that any sort of talking to TLC or Greenberg or any other group done on
> NELUG's behalf be done by a NELUG member.
>
> The reason is pretty simple. NELUG's wants and needs as a group are going to
> be different from, say, PNTLC or GMLTC, etc. I would prefer that *all* of
> NELUG's needs and agendas be considered when any kinds of negotiations or even
> general contact on NELUG's behalf is occuring with any other organisation.
>
> On the other hand, knowing what PNLTC or GMLTC is getting and from who at TLC
> or a train show organisation would be a great benefit.
>
> I hope the difference is clear.
It is to me. I guess I don't expect IOLTC to "represent" NELUG in any formal
sense. What I expect IOLTC to be is a forum where we can share experiances,
including honorarium fee's from show promoters as well as any "considerations"
they have been given by TLC.
I see it as the individual groups responsibility to use that information to
their advantage. I don't see this as IOLTC making deals for all the groups. I
think that would be folly anyway because each group has different needs as well
as different activity levels. Why should we make just as much at a show as
GMLTC? They have a clearer track record than we do. The flip side is that I
don't want to be restricted by what a newer XXLUG can make. Any honorariums
should be made based on a combination of past history as well as current
potential.
So I hope I didn't misunderstand the purpose of IOLTC. I assume that it is
just going to be a place where groups can share experiances and ideas without
the worry about "Big Brother" looking over their shoulders. As I have said
before, I hope that we use LUGNET wherever possible and only use the private
list to discuss issues we don't want to leave to the public eye.
Eric Kingsley
The New England LEGO Users Group
http://www.nelug.org/
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: IBLTC
|
| (...) Well, in sub-threads like this one: (URL) seems a lot like IOLTC, IBLTC, or ICLTC (whatever it ends up getting called) is going to be expected to "negotiate" with TLC, etc on behalf of its sub-groups. If that is going to be the case, NELUG (...) (23 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: IBLTC
|
| (...) Hmm. Well, as a fellow NELUG member, I have to admit that I am rather counter to the idea of a "meta-group" representing NELUG when facing any other organisation, espeically TLC. I am certainly not opposed to seeing some kind of forum where (...) (23 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
49 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
