[LA.pm] Fwd: hollywood.pm.org

[Peter Benjamin]

At 11:09 PM 2/1/2006, Todd Cranston-Cuebas wrote:
>The only issue is that if we try to start having guest speakers, etc. it's
>really hard to just have people "show up." I'll need some guestimate of the
>number of people coming to figure out the space. Also, if I try and get a
>speaker, they typically want to know about how many people they'll be
>talking to. I guess it's a matter of whether things stay highly informal, or
>if the tech talks are more orchestrated. Orchestration requires some
>stability in attendance, etc.
>
>I'm not sure that I have the perfect answer to the location issue.

Todd you understand the situation pretty well.
I've been running user groups and the like
for over 10 years now, and the venue is the
largest issue, with enough seating, parking,
directions, lobby access, locked doors, and
a ton of issues.

Point I wish to make is to at least have one meeting at a 
location before trying to make any decisions about future
meetings in the same location.  This applies to any location.

Once everyone has seen the location, then the postings 
tend to be solution oriented, instead of pointing out
potential problems of an unseen place.

So, I would vote for Todd understanding we would only
have "one" meeting at his graciously offered venue.

Then we can talk about future meetings, regular meetings,
scheduling speakers.  And if Todd can continue offering
the same venue for meetings or not, is something Todd
can speak on at that time.

It would be cool if the time was right for monthly
LA meetings, at first one venue seating 20, then
due to stand up room only, we changed venues to
something that held 60, then a few months later
to another venue holding 100...

On the hand, this group's tradition for meetings...

And I see that is where Robin might be of great insight.
He has seen a lot of venues.  He has contacts.  More
than anyone else I know in LA.  I do not know everyone
in LA, so this is not too unusual.  <g>