On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 10:35:32AM -0600, Bill Layer wrote: > A comment or two of my own. > > On Sun, 3 Feb 2002 09:48:27 -0600 > "Terry Houle" <houle at citilink.com> wrote: > > > Anyway with all that said I do agree with Jack and that is the > > direction I am headed. I will also present before the TCPC Board > > this month some type of relationship with TCLUG to try and formalize > > the concept a little more. It will intentionally be a bit fuzzy > > though. If Clay or any TCLUGers have any objections, or comments, I > > would certainly be glad to hear their thoughts as people weigh in on > > the subject. > > I move that at this time, any futher actions be immediately halted, and an > official 30-day comment period be opened up on the subject of future TCPC > / TCLUG involvement. I would personally like to see the leadership weigh > in on this issue. I would also like to see full corporate financial > disclosure for the TCPC, among other things. Leadership? Corporate financial disclosure? Bill? BILL? > I do not wish to see the TCLUG fall under external influence, or become > absorbed or assimilated into any other group. I am dubious about the real > costs & benefits for the TCLUG, and I would like to see some thoughtful > analysis of potential scenarios before we tread on unfamiliar ground. What kind of unapropriate influence? What cost for TCLUG? If somebody asks for help, you give it, or flame the guy extra krispy... What's gonna change? florin -- "If it's not broken, let's fix it till it is." 41A9 2BDE 8E11 F1C5 87A6 03EE 34B3 E075 3B90 DFE4 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 232 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://shadowknight.real-time.com/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20020204/d4f0f985/attachment.pgp