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 <div class="gmail_quote">On 14 May 2010 19:50, Melissa Draper <<a href="mailto:melissa@meldraweb.com">melissa@meldraweb.com</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"> <div class="im">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. </div>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. <div><div></div><div class="h5"> > 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 <<a href="mailto:melissa@meldraweb.com">melissa@meldraweb.com</a>> 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: <a href="http://meldraweb.com" target="_blank">http://meldraweb.com</a> & <a href="http://geekosophical.net" target="_blank">http://geekosophical.net</a> > > > -- > ubuntu-au mailing list > <a href="mailto:ubuntu-au@lists.ubuntu.com">ubuntu-au@lists.ubuntu.com</a> > <a href="https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-au" target="_blank">https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-au</a> > </div></div>-- <div class="im">Melissa Draper w: <a href="http://meldraweb.com" target="_blank">http://meldraweb.com</a> & <a href="http://geekosophical.net" target="_blank">http://geekosophical.net</a> </div>p: +61 4 0472 2736 </blockquote></div>