> Thank you Niel, > > What if you are not an approved Team do you still get any input. Teams > that have been Approved such as the Dallas Team from Texas,USA. and > Houston Team have activity but are not recognized as part of Ubuntu > approved Loco Teams. > > These Teams show and have shown activity have been active in IRC and > have well organized information on several sites. > > Ubuntu insists on many things but as times change these rules have > been interpreted differently by different members of the Ubuntu > Community as well as some leaders. But I am not pointing fingers (that > is not my point). This sometimes happens as structure and > infrastructure grow. > > The point I first got snagged on was the "For the Community" catch > phrase. In some ways some communities may seem disorganized more than > others. Here is why: > Education > Culture > Belief > Time > > Not every member here need possess a PHD from Purdue. Some people > spend time on project for the experience (as a Student), or need. If > it becomes a burden to Form a Team I believe that is whole heartedly > against the intention and meaning of Ubuntu. > > Yes mentorship and a community backing sounds great but why disqualify > Teams unless they don't follow Ubuntu tradition, not policy. > > I understand that part of it may be a resource issue. That is simple > "only provide discs when asked" a ticket to say I may have 40 people > gathering " may I request some i.e.-lanyard, discs, stickers " . > > I am no Team Admin or the like, but I wanted to reply. > > Ubuntu is a good thing. > > I hope that this didn't offend the ewok masters that be. > > Cordially, > > Daniel Van`Stone > On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 16:16 +0200, Neil Coetzer wrote: > On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 14:52 +0200, Philipp Stiegler wrote: > > I know some guys, who have their work, make their studies AND care > > about the ubuntu project. They do that for free without asking for > > payment or asking for anything else. Thats why I think that its not > > fair that a council judge that people. > > Hi all, > > Just to give a somewhat impartial view on this, because our LoCo Team is > still a way off of being approved I think, and this is something we're > working towards... > > 1. I certainly don't think the Council is judging people as individuals, > but rather how those individuals come together as a team and organise > themselves, which is quite different in my opinion. There may be a > number of individuals on a team who are a shining example of commitment > and hard work, but this does not necessarily mean that the team is > performing well. And when the team does not meet required standards, > this is also not necessarily a bad reflection on the individuals who are > doing their best. > > 2. Team accountability and organisation is vital, particularly when > additional resources are being given to them, so I personally feel that > the approval process is important. I think how this is viewed depends on > individual perspectives, but I'm sure it is not intended to discourage > people, but quite the opposite; it gives teams something to aim for both > initially, and in the long-term. > > 3. Speaking from the experiences we've had in our team: There have been > times when the team has nearly fallen apart, due to lack of enthusiasm > and personal clashes among other things. The main reason we have tried > so hard to keep things together is obviously for the overall well-being > of Ubuntu and the community in our area, but at least one other reason > was knowing that we have goals to achieve, including reaching the point > where we're ready for approval. Knowing that we're not just "doing our > own thing" and that in the long run we have expectations to meet, is one > of the things that has helped motivate us to keep things together. > > 4. For Teams facing "re" approval, I think this is just as important. I > can think of any number of voluntary commitments that are started with > good intentions but never continue or reach completion simply because > people have to deal with other issues in their lives and at some point > might lose interest. Having to be approved repeatedly ensures that Teams > maintain their commitment and continue to deliver results. > > In summary, I do think that even voluntary groups need a certain amount > of "policing" to maintain standards, but this should be seen as > motivation, rather than discouragement. It should encourage us to keep > getting better and better, both as teams and as individuals, as we reach > for the goals that have been set. > > Regards, > Neil > > Team Contact > Zimbabwe LoCo > >
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
-- loco-contacts mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/loco-contacts
