Re: User group losses (was: Boise Idaho User Group?)

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
In a message dated 06/03/2002 3:02:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
Buck.Calabro@commsoft.net writes:


> Subj: User group losses (was: Boise Idaho User Group?)
> Date: 06/03/2002 3:02:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time
> From:    Buck.Calabro@commsoft.net (Buck Calabro)
> Sender:    midrange-l-admin@midrange.com
> Reply-to: <A HREF="mailto:midrange-l@midrange.com";>midrange-l@midrange.com</A>
> To:    midrange-l@midrange.com
>
>
>
>
> >The few cities shown do not tell the complete story
> >what is the percentage of user groups lost?
>
> I am easily one of the dimmest bulbs in the pack, so keep that in mind for a
> moment...
>
> If I were to try to make such a rating, would I weigh all user groups
> equally?  For instance, is the renowned Toronto User Group (TUG) to carry
> the same weight as the Schenectady group with 4 members (I made that up), no
> newsletter and irregular meetings?  Do I weigh a user group by it's
> membership?  What if only a few members are regular attendees?  Do I count
> all the 'phantom' members who don't contribute?  Do I rate an urban group
> higher than a rural group because it has more members or lower because it
> covers less territory?  Should US groups be rated the same as European
> groups?
>
> I'm glad I don't have to make such a ranking.  If Don gave you the data, how
> would you calculate the percentage of groups lost?  And ultimately, what
> would that tell you?  User groups are passé?  Programmers use the internet
> more than human contact?  Drinking and driving laws make social gatherings
> prohibitive from an insurance standpoint?  The few volunteers that keep the
> organisation running are getting tired of carrying the thankless burden?
>   --buck
>
> Not mentioning Microsoft, LPAR or Beowulf clusters.  One or more of which
> undoubtedly replace the need for user groups anyway.
> _______________________________________________
BUCK
POINT  WELL MADE.


A. Ports