I would like to know how this is buroucratic, It is fourthed commitment to your role as a leader. A way to acknowledge your commitment. To simply let others know you are taking "leadership by example".
Unfortunatelly there is a great number of leaders take roles and suddenly are not able to contribute their volutary time due to X or Y reasons. I have faced this in my time. I would like to express that it is our responsibility to the areas in which we lead need to be reasured of this commitment. Where do I sign? :D On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Jan Claeys <[email protected]> wrote: > Op vrijdag 23-04-2010 om 19:30 uur [tijdzone +0200], schreef David > Rubin: >> "One who oversees material, or resources" this IMHO isn't a leadership >> position and shouldn't be held responsible. In ZA I am the loco >> contact, I in no way am in charge or the head hoohoo or what ever you >> wish to defined leadership by. I am simply the guy that subscribes to >> many lists and gets spamed with information and helps to push the rest >> of his community into being more active and keep them informed. >> >> When we opened up nominations we mentioned that a willing leader is >> someone that would have to follow the LCoC. We didn't expect people to >> sign any thing it was a simple matter of mutual agreement as to what >> needed to be done. If we require leadership to start signing stuff >> there goes the whole idea behind a community built on trust and >> freedom(not literally but at heart) >> >> While I agree it is great to have some nice means like the CoC and I >> kinda like the ceremonial process of signing the CoC(learning to use >> gpg and launchpad) I see no point in requesting loco >> leaders+tom+dick+harry to sign yet another document (the LCoC) as they >> start becoming more active in the loco. It reminds me of Dilbert and >> the giant big corporations and makes it yet another barrier to entry >> to Ubuntu. >> >> We already have enough issues with market share, gaming, proprietary >> drivers+hardware making it hard for new users to become active Ubuntu >> members we do not need bureaucracy helping it. >> >> I am pretty sure that gpg signed LCoC isn't legally binding and in all >> cases the loco-council supersedes loco contacts/leaders which in turn >> is superseded by community-council.... >> >> I hope to never seen it officially required to sign the LCoC even >> though I agree with every single line of it, I do not agree with the >> processes which we trying to enforce them as Paul mentioned where do >> you draw the line of leadership, next thing we know we are going to >> enforce signing the LCoC when you install Ubuntu onto a laptop because >> you are officially becoming a promoter of Ubuntu. > > I can see the point you're making about bureaucracy... > > I think maybe it's not necessary to make signing it mandatory, but at > least they should know about it (as they will be judged by it), and > signing it can be encouraged, especially for those who hold important > formal responsibilities? > > > -- > Jan Claeys > > > -- > loco-contacts mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/loco-contacts > -- Efrain Valles https://launchpad.net/~effie-jayx -- loco-contacts mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/loco-contacts
