Getting reapproved

[Jared Norris]

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
>

Good morning/afternoon/evening Ubuntu-AU'ers

I would just like to say that despite what you think
could/would/should be done better Melissa has raised some very good
points. She did ask for people to contribute and assist with creating
the wiki at the start of this process and for the most part it pretty
much got ignored/forgotten quickly (I admit I was one of the people
thinking "it's ok someone else will look at that"). As Melissa
obviously does want the team re-approved she spent a large amount of
time creating the re-approval wiki with only some minor changes by a
few others.

For some reason the concept of re-approval suddenly appeared to invoke
a desire in some people to see this as an opportunity to apparently go
from almost no contributions to suggesting they were capable of
massive contributions overnight. The only price would be that this
group wanted status symbols attached to contributions. This same small
group of people then flooded the mailing list with email after email
essentially just rehashing the same thing over and over again.

After realising that Melissa was not willing to give “the keys to the
car” (administrating rights to ubuntu.org.au) to people that have had
only small contributions to Ubuntu-AU content previously and instead
of going through the appropriate channels to get content listed on the
website they created their own “separate” community. I use the term
separate loosely here because from what I have observed this
“alternate” site is made up of scraping off content off the official
site, using people's RSS feeds without even the courtesy to ask if
that would be appropriate and linking people to things described as
free that have never been free. So other than the URL it is
essentially a mirror of the official sites anyway but just set with a
different website theme.

Melissa's call for people to actually do stuff is a fair call. There
are plenty of people out there saying we must change everything on the
basis that how can you possibly do anything if you're not in control
of it. What was stopping anyone from submitting content to the website
administrators listed on the wiki? There was certainly nothing
stopping anyone calling a meeting or adding agenda items to the wiki
to provide any evidence that people had ideas to contribute without
having the beating of being denied re approval to kick people into
action.

Just to put it out there that there is currently probably what could
be considered a “council” for the Ubuntu-AU team already even though
the members working in the roles are not publicly recognised for their
efforts. By this I am referring to not only Melissa's efforts but also
what could be considered a “web team” of people who administrate the
ubuntu.org.au website, maintain the wiki and moderate the mailing
list. The only thing we could really be missing would be someone
willing to be responsible for organising and chairing meetings mainly
due to an apparent lack of interest. None of these things just happen,
they required people volunteering their own time to assist the team.
So if you all really think we need to formally define a structure for
the team why not just recognise the roles already performed by people
as we speak. As for elections I do not think volunteer groups such as
this really are suited to the popularity contest because it does not
promote a fluid transition of one role to another and in my experience
rarely gets you the best person for the actual job. People who often
end up in “roles” get there purely just by doing them. Who's to say if
you provide regular, quality content for the website you won't be
offered an administrator account after it is realised this is where
you have a talent and a proven track record?

Other comments on this mailing list imply that “nothing is happening”
in our loco. Sure 2010 was a little slower than previous years but as
previously stated the global financial crisis did mean there were
fewer opportunities, it did not mean we sat on our hands and did
nothing. If you read the re-approval wiki itself it shows that events
and activities did take place where possible. Just because your
particular request/idea didn't eventuate it doesn't mean “nothing
happened”.

Finally I am flattered that Melissa has suggested I could possibly do
even a fraction of the workload she has put into this team over the
last few years that few people actually realise is involved in doing
the back office, thankless jobs that most people don't even notice.

Regards,

Jared Norris