Coming up with another term for Approved LoCo Teams - Discussion

[Jared Norris]

On 7 February 2013 05:23, Laura Czajkowski <laura at lczajkowski.com> wrote:

>  A topic that comes up frequently on blog posts we've seen and also from
> talking to people is the word "Approved"LoCo it doesn't empower people at
> times. The feedback is that the word approved loco is not great to motivate
> others who have not been approved or at some point were approved and then
> not approved.
>
> There are many ways to look at this, and it may not change, but if we
> don't discuss it then we'll forever seen these comments elsewhere.
> Currently we have the group LoCo Teams and then two subsets, Approved and
> unapproved. Neither of which are particularly great but do convey in all
> languages what they mean. We also appreciate not everyone feels this way
> and many like the word approved so lets see if we could possibly find
> something better.
>
> Ideally the unapproved loco team would just be called LoCo Team and then
> the Approved LoCo team could be called or their status level could be:
>
> * verified loco team
> * evaluated loco team
> * sponsored loco team
> * reviewed loco team
>
> status = Verified, Evaluated, Reviewed, Sponsored
>
> *Ubuntu LoCo Teams ($status)* -- for the team that has been recognised as
> a team in good standing and that receives sponsored items from Canonical
>
> *Ubuntu LoCo Teams --* for regular teams that are just formed and have not
>  been evaluated.
>
> If you have a better suggestion why not let us know. This was discussed at
> the last LoCo Council IRC Meeting -
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LoCoCouncil/Minutes/20130115
>
>
>  Cheers,
>
> Laura -  on behalf of the Ubuntu LoCo Council
>
> --
> Laura Czajkowski https://wiki.ubuntu.com/czajkowski
> LoCo Council Member
> Community Council Member
>
>
> --
> loco-contacts mailing list
> loco-contacts at lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/loco-contacts
>
>

My personal preference would be "sponsored". When I thought about it what
Canonical's main reason for evaluating teams regularly to give them a label
was, I came to the conclusion it was to ensure the most appropriate
distribution of the limited resources available. Active teams are the
better resourced as they're the ones currently putting in the effort,
therefore they are sponsored.

I could be making an incorrect assumption about Canonical's motives for
requesting the bi-annual review, in which case feel free to let me know.

-- 
Regards,

Jared Norris
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/JaredNorris
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/loco-contacts/attachments/20130207/4beabb1e/attachment.html>