Defining "Leader"

[Paul Tagliamonte]

On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Chuck Frain <chuckfrain at pobox.com> wrote:
> And if I have no one willing to sign the LCoC?

Then we have an issue. What if someone does not want to get approved?

>
> This does and describes nothing beyond the CoC other than putting it
> into different words geared towards the 'leaders' of the group from my
> quick read of the document.
>

That's the point.

> In my team I'm technically the leader but I assign tasks to people on
> occasion to oversee this project or that. I don't want to have to deal
> with 'By the way Bob, before I can ask you to make that flyer you will
> have to sign the LCoC because I'm giving you responsibility here.'

It's once in your life.

>
> I know and understand my responsibilities as a contact and leader of the
> team. But if I cannot get other members to sign this, when they may not
> have even signed the CoC, I'm not going to be able to delegate anything
> to anyone. And until I have time to really read and understand it, I may

True, but only for delegating day-to-day roles. Setting up a booth
would not have you sign a LCoC

> not be willing to sign it as in the quick read I gave to it I'm
> concerned about a few points. What happens then?

Same with not signing the CoC.

>
> You mention in your mail that it would be required of anyone who holds
> any materials for the group and fingering financial repurcussions. How
> does the LCoC prevent someone from disappearing? There are no legal
> responsibilities there. Nothing to sue over. 'Jane ran off with our CDs
> after signing the LCoC. She's a bad girl for breaking the LCoC
> conditions.' I'm more worried about getting my CDs for the group back
> than some CoC/LCoC violation. And if someone wants to run off with
> material they are breaking trust with the locals who they have
> befriended that could care less at that point about some random LCoC
> violation that 'harms the greater Ubuntu community'. Likely the greater
> community will only hear a blog post or two about the theft and go on
> with their lives after saying 'Oh that's too bad $LOCO_TEAM'.

Yes, but at least we have a document that we can say they breached.
Right now it is literally "Oh that's too bad".

>
> I don't see the point in signing yet another CoC type document when the
> original one has already largely covered the topics of the new one.
>
> On Fri, 23 Apr 2010, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>> --
>> loco-contacts mailing list
>> loco-contacts at lists.ubuntu.com
>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/loco-contacts
>
> --
> Chuck Frain
> GPG Key: B2420431
> http://www.chuckfrain.net
>
> --
> loco-contacts mailing list
> loco-contacts at lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/loco-contacts
>

-Paul

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