> Is the giant LUG list over at Linux Online (linux.org) not sufficient? > (One nice thing about it, is that it seems to automatically ping groups > every year, to make sure information is kept up-to-date. Though, of course, > I'm not sure how may LUGs _do_ keep their stuff up-to-date there.) > > e.g.: > > http://www.linux.org/groups/usa/california.html
My take: it'd be awesome to include a link over to this resource , at the top or the bottom (or both) of the groups page in the loco wiki. To date I've refrained from much (any?) wiki-tending in the loco wiki. What I do bring is perspective, having tended a bunch of wikis over the years. Thus, the recent commentary. As Nathan mentioned, there are dead groups on there (and worse, ones that are worse than dead; full of pizza-joes and other takers, ready to suck new contributors dry until they turn away to nurse their wounds). So it is quite important, as Nathan also pointed out, that the loco's group list be a "working document" - hopefully identifying the loco team member who's liaising with particular LUGS, which projects (as in links to a wiki page for that specific project?) they're doing with those LUGs, etc. Re: what links need to be on the "header" included into all pages of the loco wiki: I think BOTH the projects page and the groups page deserve to be listed there. It's a big tangled web... sure... but that's OK so long as people can find their way around it and don't get shunted off into corners very often. All for now... hugs, -Paul http://reiber.org -- Ubuntu-us-ca mailing list Ubuntu-us-ca@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-us-ca
