Defining "Leader"

[Jan Claeys]

Op vrijdag 23-04-2010 om 19:30 uur [tijdzone +0200], schreef David
Rubin:
> "One who oversees material, or resources" this IMHO isn't a leadership
> position and shouldn't be held responsible. In ZA I am the loco
> contact, I in no way am in charge or the head hoohoo or what ever you
> wish to defined leadership by. I am simply the guy that subscribes to
> many lists and gets spamed with information and helps to push the rest
> of his community into being more active and keep them informed.
> 
> When we opened up nominations we mentioned that a willing leader is
> someone that would have to follow the LCoC. We didn't expect people to
> sign any thing it was a simple matter of mutual agreement as to what
> needed to be done. If we require leadership to start signing stuff
> there goes the whole idea behind a community built on trust and
> freedom(not literally but at heart)
> 
> While I agree it is great to have some nice means like the CoC and I
> kinda like the ceremonial process of signing the CoC(learning to use
> gpg and launchpad) I see no point in requesting loco
> leaders+tom+dick+harry to sign yet another document (the LCoC) as they
> start becoming more active in the loco. It reminds me of Dilbert and
> the giant big corporations and makes it yet another barrier to entry
> to Ubuntu.
> 
> We already have enough issues with market share, gaming, proprietary
> drivers+hardware making it hard for new users to become active Ubuntu
> members we do not need bureaucracy helping it.
> 
> I am pretty sure that gpg signed LCoC isn't legally binding and in all
> cases the loco-council supersedes loco contacts/leaders which in turn
> is superseded by community-council....
> 
> I hope to never seen it officially required to sign the LCoC even
> though I agree with every single line of it, I do not agree with the
> processes which we trying to enforce them as  Paul mentioned where do
> you draw the line of leadership, next thing we know we are going to
> enforce signing the LCoC when you install Ubuntu onto a laptop because
> you are officially becoming a promoter of Ubuntu. 

I can see the point you're making about bureaucracy...

I think maybe it's not necessary to make signing it mandatory, but at
least they should know about it (as they will be judged by it), and
signing it can be encouraged, especially for those who hold important
formal responsibilities?


-- 
Jan Claeys