On Mon, 10 Sep 2007, "Matthew East" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 01/09/2007, Matthew Copple <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 2. Would the community recognize a loco that had an independent, legal > > existence? Right now, the Community Council (which I understand is the > > sponsoring organization for the LoCo movement) really doesn't wield any > > particular control over individual LoCos, except for the power to > > approve them; therefore, it would seem to me that there would be no > > conflict, at least as the system is currently set up. However, does the > > Community Council intend on exercising more closely held control over > > LoCos in the future, and if so, would incorporation interfere with those > > plans? > > When this suggestion has arisen in the past, as far as I know our > policy on local teams setting up unincorporated associations or even > incorporated associations has been that it be strongly discouraged. > Although the issue hasn't been discussed in detail recently as far as > I know, personally I would remain of that view.
We had this debate over a year ago in Ubuntu-Au. We came to realise that maintaining any kind of official association would introduce an administrative burden that could threaten to turn a fun community project into a chore. The moral: keep things loose, keep things fun :) -- Your toaster doesn't get a virus. Your television doesn't get a virus. Why should your computer? http://www.linux.org.au/linux
pgpFyrfMp7F8c.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- loco-contacts mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/loco-contacts
