Not to insult anyone, but from my perspective I haven't really seen any leader of the group from my perspective. If anyone asked, I was saying that Aaron was the defacto informal leader from the way I saw things.
>From my angle, the US Teams Project seems to be cruising along just fine. I like the idea of education weeks and trying to do a national event would be fun. For those types of things I think we need a 'leader' to coordinate the efforts. That could just as easily be done by the project lead. Once the US has teams in each state, this project is over as far as it's original intent. If it evolves into something else great, but that is a discussion in and of itself (that needs to be discussed soon from the list I've seen). However I don't see a leader as having any real power in a group like this as it is really a support group more than an active group. We need a contact so when something needs to be done from the greater community standpoint one person can be contacted. That person has to be trusted to make the straight forward decisions and have a regular IRC meeting for the bigger choices. Joe Terranova wrote: > Then we can discuss not having a leader at the meeting. But if we're > only going to only have a team contact, then we should clarify what > authority a team contact has -- that being not much at all. That lack > of authority should be enforced, even in times of conflict. > > On Nov 25, 2007 11:11 PM, Aaron Toponce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Why all the politics? Let's just run the project as a project as we've >> been doing for the past 11 months. Creating leadership positions are >> just telling me that someone needs power to make decisions and put >> people in their place, as there seem to be some dissensions amongst >> members. Let's keep our focus on the core of the project- to get state >> locos approves, not create leaders and councils and bureaucracy. -- Ubuntu-us mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-us
