Coming up with another term for Approved LoCo Teams - Discussion

[Laura Czajkowski]

On 07/02/13 07:22, Jared Norris wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>
I'm not sure why you thought it was Canonical's motives for the
reapproval, it's not it came from the community discussions that it was
a good idea as a health check to see how loco teams were doing, it's
also part of the duties/role of the loco council to review this.

cheers

Laura

-- 
Laura Czajkowski 
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/czajkowski
LoCo Council Member 
Community Council Member