[loco-contacts] Our teams reject the new LoCo Council policy

[Bhavani Shankar R]

Hey,

On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 4:40 AM, Nathan Haines <nhaines at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> On 10/14/2014 03:57 PM, Felipe Gil Castiñeira wrote:
>>
>> On 14/10/14 23:20, Nathan Haines wrote:
>>>
>>> This does seem to indicate that they didn't read the new policy
>>> thoroughly.  But now the problem is starting to become that certain
>>> LoCo teams don't like policies that don't apply to them because they
>>> think those policies don't fit them.  That's madness.
>>
>>
>> The policy [1] is easy to read, and the statements are very clear (maybe
>> excluding the "exception rule").
>
>
> Well, I think so too, but some teams are obviously worried about things the
> LoCo Council does not seem to have intended.  :)
>

Sorry for pitching in late, The way I interpret is the teams are free
to decide upon themselves if they want to subdivide themselves based
on language or culture or geography when its unique (Lets say in case
of India/Russia for instance) for the resources to reach out more
effectively upon verification and have a channel for more localized
activity in that area.

>> Finally, you say that *"**No existing LoCo teams are being
>> reclassified". *This wasn't clear at all, and is great news for us.
>> Nevertheless, I hope this policy won't cause problems to future teams in
>> countries with "a complex organization".
>
>
> Yes, to which I would ask, "Where does it say that existing teams are being
> reclassified?"  So assuming that this is true is a little bit alarmist.  But
> even so, the logical thing to have done in my mind would have been to
> contact the LoCo Council and say "I'm concerned about this policy because I
> believe my LoCo has been considered an independent LoCo and I'm worried that
> it might not be now."  Instead, the emails here accused the LoCo Council of
> targeting cultural LoCos even after they've denied that the changes will
> affect them.
>
> The LoCo Council isn't flawless.  It would be distracting to bring up my
> grievances here, but suffice to say that I'll be the last one to say that
> they don't make mistakes.  So I do understand the alarm.  But at the same
> time, we're all working in support of the greater Ubuntu community, and
> conversations are what will helps us all work through very understandable
> concerns--not accusations and refusal to listen.

Let me take an example here: In instance of India lets say Bangalore
and Chennai (two of the metros) are in different states with different
cultures/languages and a considerable user base too, So it would be
sense to split them up as subteams that cater to their states (if they
wish so) and take it on a case by case basis on behalf of the LC and
if someone does not need it their locos will continue to exist as is
they are now.

>
> Which I think is a good reminder not only for the LoCo Council members and
> the concerned team members here, but for all of the LoCo contacts to think
> about from time to time.
>
>

As a former member of the LC, who spent time in the whole effort, The
LC intended the sub loco "as an option" to loco teams (if any team
wanted to diversify and coexist in the same geography, for instance
catalan team) I guess and applications coming in under this option
exercise, could be taken up on a case by case basis I think.

Regards,


-- 
Bhavani Shankar
Ubuntu Developer       |  www.ubuntu.com
https://launchpad.net/~bhavi