Getting reapproved

[Melissa Draper]

Greetings,

Back when we first started pooling information for the reapproval
process, I mailed the list and called for information and help in the
documenting process; help to construct the reapproval application wiki
page.

A few people sent email lists of stuff they'd done, and someone
suggested we should stop promoting ubuntu and start promoting
openoffice. Then, crickets chirped.

Except for one thread. A thread that proposed to set up committees in
each state/territory to oversee committees set up for cities, with a
national loco on top. By my quick calculation of capitals +
states/territories + 1, this would have been 16 committees, give or take
depending on various things, such as whether you consider ACT to be, in
reality, a significantly different population to Canberra.

16 committees? No. Just, no.

I expressed my opinion, and the reasoning, several times. Others also
expressed their dissatisfaction with the proposal. A few people
persisted with the 16 committee plan and things went downhill from
there. They did not get the popular support they hoped for.

The lack of popular support for this proposal is where, it appears, the
conflict "separate group" cited in the LoCo Council's rejection comes in
to it. A "separate group" that, it would seem, was ultimately triggered
by the reapproval process itself. The irony of this is not lost on me.

I would like to note here; scraping content from other sites,
syndicating people's blogs without their permission, and harvesting
email addresses from the mailing list, is really poor form.

Back when I first called for help for the reapproval, I posted a fairly
long email stating what the team contact role was, and that I have been
looking to hand it off for some time now. The absence of actual active
participants, despite my encouragement of others to run meetings (not
just call them and wait for me to chair them for you) and events in the
team is why it had not been passed off. There was not really anyone to
pass it off to.

That is why I, for the most part, stayed out of the 16 committee thread
beyond stating my opinion. That is why I did not respond to the list
immediately after the unapproval announcement a few days ago (mind you,
I was going to post last night then left my laptop adapter at work and
couldn't be bothered driving across Sydney at 10pm after an 11hr day to
fetch it).

I want people to stand up and take some responsibility for the team. I
want people to make (sensible) suggestions. We never died. We are not
dead. We're just in a lull. If it takes getting unapproved to get us out
of it, then c'est la vie.

But it means /you/ have to /do/ stuff; not just talk and then leave it
up to someone else, or expect it's the contact's responsibility now. It
means you have to think of things to discuss at the meetings and put
agenda items on the meeting page; not just wait for someone to organise
one and expect to turn up and ask unscheduled things. It means you have
to actually do stuff and not expect to be given privileges for it. It
means you have to do tangible non-social stuff /before/ you get
privileges.

And to those who want to carry LUG disagreements in to LoCo territory;
go [re]familiarise yourself with the Ubuntu Code of Conduct, please.

I want this team reapproved. I want this team to actually do things
without needing official sanction from a committee (let alone 3 layers
of them!), lest you become the team that throws members out for
'unapproved blogging' (sadly, a true story). It's your team. But I'd
like people to take some selfless responsibility and not, as various
emails I've had indicate, expect the contact/s to do it all.

People I would suggest looking to as potential contacts are Jared Norris
(head_victim) and Daniel Sobey (dns53).

-- 
Melissa Draper

w: http://meldraweb.com & http://geekosophical.net