-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 AMEN!!!!
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:57:31 -0500 "John Vilsack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You cannot expect to publish a document of that size less than 24 > > hours before a meeting and expect to have it adopted. > > > > > The document was not included as a discussion topic in the Agenda - > > and before you ask, the Agenda is a wiki page that can be modified > > by any member of the general public. > > > > Furthermore, you had the opportunity to raise the issue at the end > > of the meeting when, as chair of the meeting, I asked if there were > > any other issues to be raised. > > > > > I was under the impression that the topic was going to be addressed. > Several times during the meeting, you made mention that the document > was not to be discussed until the end. When we reached the topic you > stressed that you felt that this was inappropriate and needed to be > pushed off. > > I absolutely respect your role and value as moderator for the > meetings and I do not have any qualms with that. I did not expect my > document to be accepted, but I do appreciate constructive criticism > about what is right with it while helping me contour it to what you > believe is more in line with what you have come to expect from this > project. > > > > > > As to the specifics of the document, I'll respond to one single > > point and leave it to others to add their own comment. > > > > Your proposal calls for the following roles: > > > > # Executive Director > > # Communications Director > > # The Repository Director > > # Local Communities Director > > # LoCo Envoy > > # Philosophy Director > > # Canonical Envoy > > # Art and Media Director > > # Development Director > > # The Media Director > > > > There are other roles buried in the text. > > > > Just in case you were actually seriously proposing this list of > > roles, there were 17 people who actively spoke in the meeting, > > three of which were bots. I suspect that you will find out very > > quickly that you will have a team full of directors an no-one left > > to lead. > > > > > > > Actually, I think if you do the math, then what I am proposing makes > perfect sense. > > Based on your numbers, there are 17 people who were vocal during the > meeting. These are the people who felt that what they had to say was > something that could help shape the direction of the project. > > The point that is missing from the facts above is that there were 129 > users in the room at the conclusion of the meeting! 129 users (some > bots) that cared to be there to listen to what we had to say at that > particular moment in time. There are many people on this list like > Simon Schneebeli that don't want to listen to all our noise and > instead want to focus on tasks and what they can do to accomplish > something for the project. > > I don't believe what you meant to say was that only us willing to be > chatterboxes are the ones willing to do anything. Even if all 17 of > the talkers wanted to "lead" a project, that leaves over 6 additional > people per project to contribute. Assuming that all eight of the > positions you listed above were filled with project leads and had > projects to do, that would leave a smidge over 16 users per > project...sounds to me like a team. > > Yes, I placed a bunch of roles on that list...so let's pare it down a > bit. I bet we can look at it a bit differently if we have a more > positive attitude about the idea: > > # Executive Director > # Communications Director > # The Repository Director > # Local Communities Director > # LoCo Envoy > # Philosophy Director > # Canonical Envoy > # Art and Media Director > # Development Director > # The Media Director > > I bet whoever takes Executive Direction should probably have a > concise idea of the philosophy behind the project. So let's combine > Philosophy Director with ED. > > One down. > > Communications is meant to govern things like a task tracker and the > like, which could also be a role of oversight for the person who > controls the subversion repository of documentation. > > Two more roles combined. > > The Canonical Envoy, LoCo Envoy, and Development Envoy (mistype in the > proposal) are all members of other core groups that are here for > advisory roles, not active directorships. > > Adios to three more on the list. > > Let's have a look at that list again: > > # Executive Director > # Technologies Director (was Comm/Repo) > # Local Communities Director > # Art Director > # Media Director > > Advisors > > # LoCo Envoy > # Canonical Envoy > # Development Envoy > > So now, with just a few minutes of thinking this through, I was able > to condence it to Cory's magive number of 3-5. We would probably > want a leader for the Spread Ubuntu campaign in there too for good > measure, but that's neither here nor there. > > I'm not calling for a rigid hierarchy. The core-marketers would have > to follow the same philosophical mandates as the rest of the > project. Anything and everything these people do should be approved > through a consensus just like everything else. But now you have > established points of contact to help build our group and that focus > intently on what is important to their areas. > > I think there is a solid base for leadership that has already > presented itself. What I am asking for is for you all to realize > that with a little bit of infrastructure, you can begin rapid > development of your own projects and see clear results sooner than > later. > > Thanks, > John Vilsack - -- Peace! John -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFIUHRlsTN+hz1Fu7URApvLAJ9hanxFPZpEevhHW1H6P4RKsXQoBQCeInID GSyb87YyjfXCsSNJ1j9vT5c= =sxl7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ubuntu-marketing mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-marketing
