[TriLUG] The Direction of TriLUG

[Ron Joffe]

On Thursday 24 May 2007 16:07, Tanner Lovelace wrote:
> Ron,
>
> I hate to disagree, but that's a horrible idea.  As soon as you start
> rotating the meetings, people start wondering where it is and attendance
> goes down. TriLUG has benefited greatly by having a *STABLE* meeting time
> and location.
>
> Now, that said, TriLUG could sponsor smaller meetings at different times
> in different locations around the Triangle.  As long as it's "in addition"
> to and not "instead of" the regular monthly meeting, TriLUG won't suffer
> from the lack of stability.
>

You have to give the members a bit more credit then that. If we had three 
meeting locations (and I'm not discounting the technical hurdles of finding 
three locations), we could easily rotate between the three. 

I have to have a calendar reminder of just about every meeting I have 
(otherwise I forget), and part of that is always a location.

I think part of the issues that people are trying to remedy might very well be 
taken care of by having smaller meetings. Larger groups does not mean more 
interactive groups.

Just my 2 cents.

Ron