[plug] SLPWA and automatic PLUG membership

[Brian Tombleson]

> I'm not concerned one way or the other regarding this, but I do see a
<briefed>
> also a PLUG member.  This would essentially make PLUG a subsiduary of
SLPWA.
> Do others see this as an acceptable risk?

Umm .. no, not really.
One of the reasons that discussions on SLPWA and it's formation and
separation from PLUG is that most believe that PLUG should *not ever* be
commercially biased.  ie. I don't push my company on PLUG and I would expect
other's in a similar position not to as well.  As stated before on this list
by SLPWA members, PLUG is a user group, for user discussions, for the
advancement of Linux in it's broadest use, for support of individuals
seeking non-commercial assistance and all the other things in PLUG's
charter.

But I still want to be in contact professionally (or rather, "commercially")
with other providers and interact with them commercially (cross-contract,
joint contract, ally and possibly compete).  None of which should be
cluttering the PLUG forum.

SLPWA as a body (and I'm confident is also echoed by individual members)
intends to support PLUG where appropriate and where applicable - not control
it in any way nor influence it beyond what the individual members already
do.  The premise of PLUG is a positive impact on SLPWA.

Lastly, if the PLUG populous do honestly see this as a threat in the longer
term, now is the time to set the guidelines in SLPWA which could be as
severe as perhaps "Any member of SLPWA forfeits the right of vote in PLUG".
If the rationale is valid, it should make sense to SLPWA founding members
and can be passed.

Personally, I don't find this a problem because if PLUG remains true to the
charter and non-commercial, there will be no conflict of interest.

> PPS: Is it pronounced 'slipwa'?

However you like :-)  Currently I think of it as the acronym S.L.P, but I
doubt there will be any enforcement of pronunciation :-)

- Brian Tombleson.