On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 19:30, David Rubin <[email protected]> wrote: > "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.
There's a distinction between authority and responsibility, although they usually go together. IMHO leadership starts with simply showing up - nobody else is doing X, so I'll do it. That becomes responsibility when others trust or expect you to do it. You gain authority in a bottom up way, if those people trust you to make the right decisions about doing X - or you gain authority in a delegated way, from higher powers like the LoCoTeam council to whom you can defer difficult decisions, or to whom you are accountable. So you might have simply showed up and taken responsibility, without a desire for power or authority, but you gain it anyway. Communities that have no authority seem to get into trouble sooner or later with different factions trying to assert their way, leading to a splintering or simply nothing ever happening. The (global) Ubuntu community seems to have prospered uniquely because of low barriers to participation, but clear leadership. Authority is best handled with humility - "I am simply the guy that..." - but it requires protection from abuse, by action or inaction (such as disappearing). I'm happy to sign the LCoC for the greater good of the community - local and global - as I agree to it anyway. I don't see it as an enforcement tool but rather a badge of honour. Regards Morgan -- loco-contacts mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/loco-contacts
