I expected a retaliatory attack and predictably it came. @Michael Chesterton: It seems to me that you wrote in anger - I forgive you but I object to your allegation that "you are a vocal minority and the cause of the loco losing its status" Can you substantiate that allegation? I know that you can't. Is my name is there in Lisa's letter in support of a LoCo. and Who or what is jdub?
@Paul Gear: There was no finger pointing nor was there any name-calling. My letter was a reply to Melissa. Regarding meritocracy, check the origin of the word. I do not object to meritocracy per se. My comments were prompted by the way meritocracy was implemented in ubuntu-au. If only one person decides who has merit and allocates privileges accordingly that is not meritocracy. @Ryan Mcnish: Will do. @Melissa Draper: I wrote to you by name in 2006. Subject matter was (among other things) establishing a group of mentors for new Ubuntu users, which I still regard as a worthwhile project and have been implementing solo for some years. Cheers, Andre On 14 May 2010 19:50, Melissa Draper <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 2010-05-14 at 18:06 +1000, Andre Mangan wrote: > > Hello Melissa, > > > > I have been a part of this mailing list since 2005. Back then I was a > > keen neophyte and eager to belong. I wrote to the designated Team > > Contact to offer some suggestions on improving some aspects of the > > organisation as well as offering my talents. I never did receive a > > reply. I wrote a second letter and again there was no reply. > > > > No doubt you had reasons for your silence, Melissa but unfortunately > > your inaction left a scar. > > > > That is one of the failings of having only one person for contact for > > the whole of Australia. There really should be several. > > Well, considering I wasn't contact until some time in 2006, this is not > my silence you speak of. Back then there were 2 contacts. > > > The concept of meritocracy is a literary fantasy and on par with many > > esoteric doctrines designed to establish superiority over the > > ignorant. Please abandon this concept. It has no right to exist and > > the way it has been used in the Ubuntu community smacks of autocracy > > in disguise. > > > > I was quite embarrassed by your letter to the LoCo Council. To me it > > seemed dismissive and untruthful. > > > > Again, in your post below, I read of matters totally foreign to me. > > Either I have not been paying attention or your inventive skills are > > finely honed. > > > > I live in the country and am familiar with locust plagues, however, > > crickets chirping makes me want to contract the crop duster. > > > > I know nothing of setting up 16 committees. Are you sure that your > > calculations are correct? I majored in statistics and mathematics and > > gladly offer my analytical expertise to you. > > > > Somebody here is barking up the wrong tree. > > > > Without prejudice, > > > > Cheers, > > Andre > > > > > > > > On 14 May 2010 17:18, Melissa Draper <[email protected]> wrote: > > Greetings, > > > > Back when we first started pooling information for the > > reapproval > > process, I mailed the list and called for information and help > > in the > > documenting process; help to construct the reapproval > > application wiki > > page. > > > > A few people sent email lists of stuff they'd done, and > > someone > > suggested we should stop promoting ubuntu and start promoting > > openoffice. Then, crickets chirped. > > > > Except for one thread. A thread that proposed to set up > > committees in > > each state/territory to oversee committees set up for cities, > > with a > > national loco on top. By my quick calculation of capitals + > > states/territories + 1, this would have been 16 committees, > > give or take > > depending on various things, such as whether you consider ACT > > to be, in > > reality, a significantly different population to Canberra. > > > > 16 committees? No. Just, no. > > > > I expressed my opinion, and the reasoning, several times. > > Others also > > expressed their dissatisfaction with the proposal. A few > > people > > persisted with the 16 committee plan and things went downhill > > from > > there. They did not get the popular support they hoped for. > > > > The lack of popular support for this proposal is where, it > > appears, the > > conflict "separate group" cited in the LoCo Council's > > rejection comes in > > to it. A "separate group" that, it would seem, was ultimately > > triggered > > by the reapproval process itself. The irony of this is not > > lost on me. > > > > I would like to note here; scraping content from other sites, > > syndicating people's blogs without their permission, and > > harvesting > > email addresses from the mailing list, is really poor form. > > > > Back when I first called for help for the reapproval, I posted > > a fairly > > long email stating what the team contact role was, and that I > > have been > > looking to hand it off for some time now. The absence of > > actual active > > participants, despite my encouragement of others to run > > meetings (not > > just call them and wait for me to chair them for you) and > > events in the > > team is why it had not been passed off. There was not really > > anyone to > > pass it off to. > > > > That is why I, for the most part, stayed out of the 16 > > committee thread > > beyond stating my opinion. That is why I did not respond to > > the list > > immediately after the unapproval announcement a few days ago > > (mind you, > > I was going to post last night then left my laptop adapter at > > work and > > couldn't be bothered driving across Sydney at 10pm after an > > 11hr day to > > fetch it). > > > > I want people to stand up and take some responsibility for the > > team. I > > want people to make (sensible) suggestions. We never died. We > > are not > > dead. We're just in a lull. If it takes getting unapproved to > > get us out > > of it, then c'est la vie. > > > > But it means /you/ have to /do/ stuff; not just talk and then > > leave it > > up to someone else, or expect it's the contact's > > responsibility now. It > > means you have to think of things to discuss at the meetings > > and put > > agenda items on the meeting page; not just wait for someone to > > organise > > one and expect to turn up and ask unscheduled things. It means > > you have > > to actually do stuff and not expect to be given privileges for > > it. It > > means you have to do tangible non-social stuff /before/ you > > get > > privileges. > > > > And to those who want to carry LUG disagreements in to LoCo > > territory; > > go [re]familiarise yourself with the Ubuntu Code of Conduct, > > please. > > > > I want this team reapproved. I want this team to actually do > > things > > without needing official sanction from a committee (let alone > > 3 layers > > of them!), lest you become the team that throws members out > > for > > 'unapproved blogging' (sadly, a true story). It's your team. > > But I'd > > like people to take some selfless responsibility and not, as > > various > > emails I've had indicate, expect the contact/s to do it all. > > > > People I would suggest looking to as potential contacts are > > Jared Norris > > (head_victim) and Daniel Sobey (dns53). > > > > -- > > Melissa Draper > > > > w: http://meldraweb.com & http://geekosophical.net > > > > > > -- > > ubuntu-au mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-au > > > > > -- > Melissa Draper > > w: http://meldraweb.com & http://geekosophical.net > p: +61 4 0472 2736 > >
-- ubuntu-au mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-au
