Best Practices and Guidelines

[Paul Tagliamonte]

On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 9:46 PM, Randall Ross <randall at executiv.es> wrote:
> I don't feel the tweak is hitting the crux of the issue. Perhaps it's
> still a result of terminology though. I'm confused, so let me try to
> play it back...
>
> The tweaked problem statement sounds like:
>
> 4) LoCo teams (that are regional or national) aren't serving the
> communities (that are truly local) within their boundaries to the extent
> that they need to be supported. As a result, local teams (that are truly
> local) are rare.
>
> Is this true?



Kinda, but I think we're still speaking two different languages, let's
try and rectify


I think that a LoCo should cover a large scope. It should be this
large scope that decides on how to break up it's area into something
that it can manage.

I don't think changing the verbage to have a LoCo refer to a city
would really help at this point. If we had to do it again, yeah, I
could see your point. Too little, too late changing the names at this
point IMHO.

After all, we can't really set up a way to split up every case, we
should instead set up what we expect from a team, and let the team hit
that objective.

If it's something in the official policy, it's something we would have
to look at when considering a team for approval or re-approval.


Yes, you don't see city level locos on the LD or list because there
should not be city level locos. LoCos should be state / country level.

How it breaks up ( county / city / lat & lon ) is really up to the
team it's self IMHO.

>
> Cheers,
> Randall.
>
> --
>
>
> On 10-08-23 06:35 PM, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 9:30 PM, Randall Ross <randall at executiv.es> wrote:
>>
>>> Who needs bugs anyways? ;) Let's discuss.
>>>
>> I like it :)
>>
>>
>>> I suggest that we start with a *problem statement*. Several come to mind
>>> based on this thread.
>>>
>>> 1) "LoCo's are not local enough" or,
>>>
>>> 2) "LoCo's would become more local if sufficient guidelines were put in
>>> place to help them"
>>>
>>> 3) "LoCo's that are local need guidance to run/operate"?
>>>
>> I think these are all really strong starts ( and in the spirit of
>> "yes, and" and not "yes, but" ) I will "tweek" them a bit --
>>
>> LoCo teams would better serve the community if guidelines and
>> expectations regarding activity on a local ( read -- no farther then
>> an hour or two from another area ( we use 30 minutes for Ohio ) ) were
>> put in place for both approved and un-approved local communities.
>>
>>
>>> I vote for number 1. (No surprise to many I guess.) Let me explain why:
>>> We have over 12 million Ubuntu users worldwide and only 7 truly local
>>> teams. That's a big problem. A community of our size should have many
>>> many more. The lack of truly local teams hobbles our marketing efforts,
>>> our visibility in the community, and possibly more. Our mindshare may be
>>> shrinking for the first time in history...
>>>
>>> Which problem do you all feel we trying to solve?
>>>
>> How do you feel about my tweek?
>>
>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Randall
>>> Ubuntu Vancouver LoCo
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10-08-23 05:35 PM, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hey Contacts,
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to kick off a discussion, if I could.
>>>>
>>>> Bug #392986[1] was filed a while ago. I just closed it, and figured we
>>>> can actually, well, follow through with this.
>>>>
>>>> The bug is about how LoCos are not Local enough. I closed the bug with
>>>> the note that we would adopt a best practices line for how to run a
>>>> LoCo with a city level presence ( *more* then one ).
>>>>
>>>> Since this bug is now *closed*, please do not file anything against
>>>> this bug ( comments or otherwise ), and keep it in this thread.
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts? Opinions?
>>>>
>>>> -Paul
>>>>
>>>> [1]: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-community/+bug/392986
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> loco-contacts mailing list
>>> loco-contacts at lists.ubuntu.com
>>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/loco-contacts
>>>
>>>
>> -Tag
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> loco-contacts mailing list
> loco-contacts at lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/loco-contacts
>

-Tag

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