Governance Structure Proposal for Ubuntu-AU

[Matthew Rossi]

On 8 March 2010 16:19, Andrew Gaydon <gandella at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Matthew,
>
> On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Matthew Rossi <matt at pcpodcast.org> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> On 8 March 2010 15:40, AndrewG <gandella at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Nice Summary Matthew.
>>>
>>>
>>> On the State representative model, (of which you know that I am in
>>> favour of)
>>>
>>> This is the way that I see it.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 8, 2:01 pm, Matthew Rossi <m... at pcpodcast.org> wrote:
>>> > Hello,
>>> >
>>> > I agree with what Scott is saying.  It would be a good idea to be
>>> flagging
>>> > those contributing to this thread as those with a vested interest in
>>> the
>>> > LoCo, and that we need to work out overall what our LoCo is trying to
>>> > achieve.
>>> >
>>> > Going back to the talk about the Governance structure, we have about
>>> three
>>> > different systems going around.
>>> >
>>> > We have the present system, which isn't working too well.  I don't need
>>> to
>>> > repeat why because it has already been covered.
>>> >
>>> > We have my system, which would struggle to organise events and liaise
>>> with
>>> > local LUGs in states that do not have representation on the committee.
>>> >  There are also issues regarding election processes and the idea of
>>> newer
>>> > members attaining committee spots being out of reach that need to be
>>> looked
>>> > at.
>>> >
>>> > We have the state rep system.  It works well if there are active reps
>>> from
>>> > each state within the LoCo.  Elections would never work for that model
>>> as
>>> > the numbers of people in each state are too small, so how do we select
>>> reps?
>>> >  And how do we encourage newer members to get involved as a state rep?
>>>  If
>>> > the process isn't rigid and doesn't allow for regular change, then
>>> > becomes too hard for newer members.  There is also a chance that we
>>> can't
>>> > get state reps for various states, which means that liaising with LUGs
>>> and
>>> > organising events there would become too difficult.
>>>
>>> 1.  Each state would elect their own representative for the ubuntu-au
>>> council. (on an anniversary date)
>>>    (if there is no person to represent a state, the seat on the
>>> ubuntu-au council would be left open to be filled at a later date)
>>>
>>>    What do you mean about "elections would never work" as the numbers
>>> of people in each state are too small" ??
>>>
>>
>> The number of active people within each state that would be interested in
>> voting may be too small.  I'm wrong in saying that it would never work
>> because if the number of candidates and the number of voters is at the right
>> number which allows for a majority vote to work.
>>
>
> If there is 'one' person nominating for the position, then there would be
> no need for an election, this person would be elected un-opposed.  If
> no-body nominates then the state will be un-represented.  'A majority' vote
> is not necessarily needed.
>
>
If a State is un-represented and somebody wants to be 'Elected' then a
> 'Special meeting' can be called and the person elected.
>
> This is not really a problem as I see it.
>
>
My concern was more with there being say 4 candidates between 8 voters,
though I suppose if necessary we can split it up as per point 2 of your
email.  Otherwise all is good.


>
>
>>    If you look at the https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AustralianTeam/Members,
>>> every state has members.
>>>
>>> 2.  As each state may have more than one group, ie  Brisbane, Cairns,
>>> Gold Coast each can nominate a person to become a state rep.
>>>    An election can then be held if there is more than one
>>> candidate.
>>>
>>>
>> That could work.
>>
>>
>>> 3.  Maybe a 'general' committee member could be used to represent 'un-
>>> represented' states ???
>>>
>>>
>> That wouldn't work well because then that committee would be formed with
>> people that don't live in that state, which would make it difficult to do
>> the liaising with local LUGs etc.  If necessary we could group the smaller
>> state's together.  Like we can have one position for SA and NT.
>>
>
> Yes this could work.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Andrew G.
>>>
>>> >
>>> > So, keeping that in mind, let me pose this question, which way do we
>>> go?  We
>>> > need to have a rigid and transparent structure of governance because it
>>> is
>>> > obvious that without one we as a LoCo are going to struggle to get
>>> things
>>> > done.
>>> > --
>>> > Regards,
>>> > Matthew Rossi
>>> > m... at pcpodcast.org
>>> > Tel: +1 253 987 6413
>>> > Mob: +61 488 122 990
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > ubuntu-au mailing list
>>> > ubuntu... at lists.ubuntu.comhttps://
>>> lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-au
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Matthew Rossi
>> matt at pcpodcast.org
>> Tel: +1 253 987 6413
>> Mob: +61 488 122 990
>>
>
>
> Keep the thoughts coming along, as in brainstorming we can get something
> achieved.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andrew.
>