Getting reapproved
Andre Mangan
andremangan at gmail.com
Sat May 15 00:02:18 BST 2010
I expected a retaliatory attack and predictably it came.
@Michael Chesterton: It seems to me that you wrote in anger - I forgive you
but I object to your allegation that "you are a vocal minority and the cause
of the loco losing its status" Can you substantiate that allegation? I
know that you can't.
Is my name is there in Lisa's letter in support of a LoCo.
and
Who or what is jdub?
@Paul Gear: There was no finger pointing nor was there any name-calling.
My letter was a reply to Melissa.
Regarding meritocracy, check the origin of the word. I do not object to
meritocracy per se. My comments were prompted by the way meritocracy was
implemented in ubuntu-au. If only one person decides who has merit and
allocates privileges accordingly that is not meritocracy.
@Ryan Mcnish: Will do.
@Melissa Draper: I wrote to you by name in 2006. Subject matter was (among
other things) establishing a group of mentors for new Ubuntu users, which I
still regard as a worthwhile project and have been implementing solo for
some years.
Cheers,
Andre
On 14 May 2010 19:50, Melissa Draper <melissa at meldraweb.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-05-14 at 18:06 +1000, Andre Mangan wrote:
> > Hello Melissa,
> >
> > I have been a part of this mailing list since 2005. Back then I was a
> > keen neophyte and eager to belong. I wrote to the designated Team
> > Contact to offer some suggestions on improving some aspects of the
> > organisation as well as offering my talents. I never did receive a
> > reply. I wrote a second letter and again there was no reply.
> >
> > No doubt you had reasons for your silence, Melissa but unfortunately
> > your inaction left a scar.
> >
> > That is one of the failings of having only one person for contact for
> > the whole of Australia. There really should be several.
>
> Well, considering I wasn't contact until some time in 2006, this is not
> my silence you speak of. Back then there were 2 contacts.
>
> > The concept of meritocracy is a literary fantasy and on par with many
> > esoteric doctrines designed to establish superiority over the
> > ignorant. Please abandon this concept. It has no right to exist and
> > the way it has been used in the Ubuntu community smacks of autocracy
> > in disguise.
> >
> > I was quite embarrassed by your letter to the LoCo Council. To me it
> > seemed dismissive and untruthful.
> >
> > Again, in your post below, I read of matters totally foreign to me.
> > Either I have not been paying attention or your inventive skills are
> > finely honed.
> >
> > I live in the country and am familiar with locust plagues, however,
> > crickets chirping makes me want to contract the crop duster.
> >
> > I know nothing of setting up 16 committees. Are you sure that your
> > calculations are correct? I majored in statistics and mathematics and
> > gladly offer my analytical expertise to you.
> >
> > Somebody here is barking up the wrong tree.
> >
> > Without prejudice,
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Andre
> >
> >
> >
> > On 14 May 2010 17:18, Melissa Draper <melissa at meldraweb.com> wrote:
> > 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
> >
> >
> > --
> > ubuntu-au mailing list
> > ubuntu-au at lists.ubuntu.com
> > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-au
> >
>
>
> --
> Melissa Draper
>
> w: http://meldraweb.com & http://geekosophical.net
> p: +61 4 0472 2736
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-au/attachments/20100515/1859953a/attachment.htm
More information about the ubuntu-au
mailing list