Defining "Leader"

[Efrain Valles]

I would like to know how this is buroucratic, It is fourthed
commitment to your role as a leader. A way to acknowledge your
commitment. To simply let others know you are taking "leadership by
example".

Unfortunatelly there is a great number of leaders take roles and
suddenly are not able to contribute their volutary time due to X or Y
reasons. I have faced this in my time. I would like to express that it
is our responsibility to the areas in which we lead need to be
reasured of this commitment.

Where do I sign? :D

On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Jan Claeys <lists at janc.be> wrote:
> 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 is superseded by community-council....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
>
>
> --
> loco-contacts mailing list
> loco-contacts at lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/loco-contacts
>



-- 
Efrain Valles
https://launchpad.net/~effie-jayx