Defining "Leader"

[Paul Tagliamonte]

Hey LoCo Contacts,

At our last Council meeting[0] we had discussed having contacts sign
the LCoC, or Leadership Code of Conduct[1].

This idea was met with very light opposition based solely on the fact
that contacts may not be the "leader" of the team, as was pointed out
( and exemplified ) by the DistrictOfColumbiaTeam.

As a result, the natural move is to redefine who must sign the LCoC.

Following is the current base criteria that the the LoCo Council has
come up with as a guideline for who will be required to sign the LCoC.


 * LoCo Contacts
 * One who oversees people
 * One who oversees material, or resources

Here is the Council's rational for each -


 * LoCo Contacts
They are the ones that we would get in touch with if we have
questions. They are the only ones who can request CDs for Shippit, and
are in control on Launchpad. If they go missing, everyone outside the
LoCo has a harder time getting in touch with someone who can either
route the question, or answer it with authority.

 * One who oversees people
This is what we were driving at from day 0 with the LCoC. Anyone who
oversees could mean someone as general as a "president", someone
designated for IRC administration, or even a local member who ensures
that events get followed through. A lot of teams object to defining
leader in terms of Contact because they have a system where the
"Administrator" is not the POC.

 * One who oversees material, or resources
If there is a member who holds all the materials ( posters, signs, CDs
), they have a duty and obligation to the team to not just disappear.
Local Communities are ( more often then not ) run and funded
exclusively from the members, and a blow such as this would be a large
financial burden on the team.


[0]: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LoCoCouncil/Agenda/20100420
[1]: http://www.ubuntu.com/community/leadership-conduct


Feedback, as always, is welcome.

Humbly,
Paul Tagliamonte, on behalf of the LoCo Council

-- 
#define sizeof(x) rand()
:wq