Best Practices and Guidelines

[Paul Tagliamonte]

On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Nathan Haines <nhaines at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-08-26 at 07:42 -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
>> Can anyone think of reasons that creating a standard that dictates
>> that LoCo teams must foster growth at the lowest granularity possible
>> for their region?
>
> Could you please clarify your request?  That's not a complete sentence
> and doesn't explain what reasons you are asking us to think of.

Can anyone think of reasons against creating this standard *

Sorry, sent this early in the day.

This level of granularity is really up to the loco -- for most US
states it would be per-city level. If it ( the state ) is small ( such
as rhode island ) there might be no need for a group in more then one
city ( they're close enough where it's not out of anyone's way ). It
would just be saying "Look, don't ignore the whole state and focus on
one city".

>
> If you are asking for reasons that creating such a standard would not be
> a good idea, I would say it makes me nervous that below you seem to be
> looking to create a stick to smack LoCos with:

No well-functioning team should have anything to worry about.

I'd think this issue would hit close to home -- California had some
rough times regarding not focusing on the whole state a while back.

This would be used to say "Hey, look, help these guys and *cooperate*
with them -- neglecting whole cities is not kosher".

This would not *mandate* being in every city -- if there's no base,
there's no base, but if there are people willing to do the work, a
LoCo should do *everything* in their power to help.

This is so that we can make sure that teams are not focusing on one
city and not anywhere else, since, after all, a LoCo is state-wide.

>
>> Any issues with a LoCo blocking city level
>> "startups" is frowned upon ( and soon, if we can finish up this
>> thread, a nice and tidy violation of standards ).
>
> Since no one seems to have agreed on an "action plan" yet, but you're
> already pushing to create a standard that will be actively enforced
> against LoCos, I'm concerned that we might end up with a policy that
> doesn't necessarily make sense for all LoCos.

Does anyone disagree with coming to the conclusion that we need to
make sure a LoCo focuses on a whole state and not just one city in a
state? -- I thought that was in the definition of a LoCo, but I could
just be a liberal judge ;)

>
> It's already important for LoCos to foster and encourage local advocacy
> and participation.  I'd prefer to continue developing good documentation
> that helps make this easier rather than creating requirements that would
> probably be unnecessary if documentation were there.

If there are no requirements then we have no way of saying "Do this or
you're not staying true to the philosophy of a LoCo" -- they could
argue that's what a LoCo does, and no one would be able to say
anything different.

>
> --
> Nathan Haines <nhaines at ubuntu.com>
> Ubuntu California Local Community Team
>
>
> --
> loco-contacts mailing list
> loco-contacts at lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/loco-contacts
>



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