Governance Structure Proposal for Ubuntu-AU

[Matthew Rossi]

On 8 March 2010 13:05, Paul Gear <paul at libertysys.com.au> wrote:

>  Melissa Draper 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.
>
> ...
>
>  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.
>
>
> I have to agree with Melissa on this one.  The position(s) need(s) to be
> given to the person(s) actually able to do the job.  Perhaps if people are
> looking for a contact person for each state, we need to have an
> out-of-band/unofficial/less-official role which is more along the lines of
> what people are looking for with the election-style deal.
>
>
I have to agree with Melissa too.  It would be hard to ensure that there is
one person in every state that can actually do the job.  I hoped that my
idea of trying to give one spot to someone outside of the 'big three' states
where possible would be a good enough compromise between those who were for
and against the state rep idea.

I suppose we could have one person from each state outside of the committee
to serve as a contact person.  The only issues I would see is how those
people would work alongside the committee and what responsibilities do we
actually give these state contact people?


> I personally couldn't be bothered jumping through the hoops (not to mention
> what seems to me to be a ridiculous amount of self-promotion) required to be
> on the LoCo leadership - i have enough to do between switching between two
> jobs and keeping a number of different clients above water.  However, i
> would be happy to be a contact for people to talk to about Ubuntu, and i
> would be happy to organise meetups like we've had recently here in Brisbane.
>
>
That's fair enough.   I don't think I described the role of Ordinary
Committee Member as something that involved a large amount of work compared
to the more 'senior' roles so to speak.  What you said you were willing to
do is the type of stuff that I thought that an Ordinary Committee Member
would do.

I hope we can also find a balance between making it easy for people to apply
and making sure that we get the right people on the committee. I think once
we set up a process for electing committee members, moving the hoops should
be easier.

I suppose we could find out who actually wants to apply, work out how many
positions are available and see if there are more people interested compared
to the number of positions being contested.  If that is the case then we
proceed with an election.

Paul
>
>
> --
> ubuntu-au mailing list
> ubuntu-au at lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-au
>
>


-- 
Regards,
Matthew Rossi
matt at pcpodcast.org
Tel: +1 253 987 6413
Mob: +61 488 122 990
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-au/attachments/20100308/9b6c10b3/attachment.htm