Governance Structure Proposal for Ubuntu-AU

[AndrewG]

Melissa,

On Mar 8, 11:44 am, Melissa Draper <meli... at meldraweb.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 11:25 +1100, Andrew Swinn wrote:
> > Just a quick 2 cents worth on the whole committee thing.
>
> > I would agree that having an overall president plus a representive from
> > each state would be the way to go.
>
> Linux Australia has gone through this discussion regularly over the
> years. The conclusion has always been that it's not feasible. Why?
>
> Because you have to find, for each state (and territory), someone
> actually capable and willing to do the role. In a country like
> Australia, that means finding someone from NSW, Vic, QLD, WA, SA, Tas,
> ACT.
>

With a process of "ASKING"
Why can't we find people willing and able perform such roles.


> > I would also suggest that these state positions could be dual roles with
> > the other needs, ie as well as representing their state/territory
> > interest they could spearhead marketing, or website maintenance etc. The
> > state/territory reps could and should be able to handle organising other
> > facets of what needs to be taken care of as well as being that contact
> > point for their area.
>
> The chances of you getting token folk from each state and then hoping
> they can do roles such as this really is not plausible. That's kind of
> how we end up with cabinet ministers in Canberra who have a
> palin-to-foreign-policy outlook on their portfolios.


Why not try !!   ASK !!!
If people do not perform, strip them of their responsibility.

>
> > So firstly I think we should organise the first thing, getting a
> > president/leader/whatever put in place plus state reps, then letting
> > those elected/appointed people work on organising the rest.
>
> > One of the big issues with community groups is getting caught up in the
> > politics of it all. Those age old requirements for
> > president/treasurer/minutes/commitees out the wazoo all scare new people
> > away. People are extroadinarily time limited today so keeping it short
> > and simple is what should be focused on.
>
> Once you have a committee you /are/ caught up in the politics. A
> committee is political no matter which way you spin it and offices do
> have requirements.
>

Politics is involved everywhere, but with proper governance and
process, committees do work.


>
> > Having state/territory reps that are also involved with local LUGS would
> > also be valuable.
>
> > Andrew
>
> > On 8/03/2010 10:56 AM, AndrewG wrote:
> > > Matt&  Benjamin,
>
> > > IMHO.
>
> > > I would propose that the committee be a representative one, being
> > > 'one' State leader from each state.
>
> > > Why, because most implementation of Goals of Ubuntu-au will be enacted
> > > on at a local level.
> > >       Ie.  Exhibition stalls, Install fests, cd distribution  etc.
> > >       A 'State' leader would also be a 'Local contact' for interested
> > > people wanting to get involved.
>
> > > Sub-committees could also be formed, to deal with 'Marketing
> > > resources', 'Website maintenance' etc. on a national level.
>
> > > Also don't forget the various 'LUGS' around the country, they have
> > > many resources that could also be utilised.
>
> > > Yes Ben, there would be a process needed to 'Vet' candidates for
> > > positions.
>
> > > Cheers,
> > > Andrew G.
>
> --
> Melissa Draper
>
> w:http://meldraweb.com&http://geekosophical.net
> p: +61 4 0472 2736
>
> --
> ubuntu-au mailing list
> ubuntu... at lists.ubuntu.comhttps://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-au