Subject:
|
I<whatever>LTC summary
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains.org
|
Date:
|
Tue, 27 Feb 2001 21:41:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
364 times
|
| |
|
|
Here's a summary as I see it so far
- The organizational goals aren't 100% clear yet but are getting clearer.
- more of a sharing of experiences and ideas and resources (like the
handout to pick a small example, but other stuff too)
- less of a "united front" in negotiating with anyone, but especially TLC.
- a group being in I<whatever>LTC just means that a group has a trains
interest of some sort, nothing more or less. Position with TLC is more
likely to be based on what the group has to offer TLC (marketing, etc. tie
ins) than some membership cert in I<whatever>LTC
- One person or two from each club is probably plenty for this sort of
coordinating group. Who that is is up to individual clubs. (Did I just talk
myself out of being in it? C'est la vie.)
- Various clubs have various goals, maturity levels, membership levels,
needs, desires etc. Yet common ground still exists. If more experienced
clubs can help less experienced clubs we all benefit. Some of this help is
likely to be nebulous and hard to describe before it's needed. But when it's
needed, it's handy to have something to lean on.
- LUGNET should be used where possible, but private lists where necessary.
Some stuff is sensitive. (this happens already, I suspect many of us are on
various private lists...)
- "Brotherhood", well intentioned or not, historical or not, is too likely
to distract as a name component so ought to be avoided.
- But we haven't picked another one! IOLTC seems to be gaining favor and
probably is "good enough" for everyone. Call the question! If anyone hates
it speak up now (remembering that the name isn't nearly as important as the
goals). Be prepared to justify. (and no fair pointing out it sounds like IOOC)
BTW I sent Mike Walsh a note suggesting HE pick the name since he set up the
lists :-)... he didn't answer (wisely?).
Accurate summary?
Are there remaining areas of disagreement?
(Erik K raised a good point, the NELUG storefront displays of Starwars and
Castle were not Trains... but that's sort of a so what until some group that
has done that but hasn't also done a train show asks to belong)
What are the next steps?
Organizational goals not yet listed?
(I'd like to see module standards thrashed out again, there has been some
deviation from the last time which is fine, the situation changed)
++Lar
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: I<whatever>LTC summary
|
| (...) Larry, Thanks for the summary this is basically just as I see it at the moment. <snip summary> (...) Yes. (...) Good point. Trains are definitly the most likely thing to be displayed at the moment so it is probably not going to be a common (...) (23 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
| | | Re: I<whatever>LTC summary
|
| (...) <snip> (...) Sounds good to me. You must have posted this while I was working on my own (somewhat more formally worded version) of the same. Pretty fast - do you do this for a living or something? ;) (...) Pick a name, start a mailing list. (...) (23 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
| | | Re: I<whatever>LTC summary
|
| (...) I hope you will stay involved :-) I think you've got the widest experience with LTCs (how many are you a member of?). (...) I'd love to see some work on module standards. It would be nice to head towards a standard height for the table (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
| | | Re: I<whatever>LTC summary
|
| (...) Great summary! I really feel this helped me a lot to understand more of the issues. One thing I'm not clear on yet, though, with regard to the purpose of the organization, is what current problems it would solve? Or would it just make more new (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
12 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
