[Ubuntu-be] Rechtsvorm van Ubuntu-be / Legal information about Ubuntu-be -

[Jurgen Gaeremyn]

Hi all,

it's a long mail here...

Jan Claeys wrote:
> Op zaterdag 11-07-2009 om 21:07 uur [tijdzone +0200], schreef Matthew
> Deboysere:
>   
>
> The only "mandatory management" in a "vzw" is about the legal
> obligations, it won't change much in the day-to-day management
> necessarily.
>   
Well... if some person(s) would be held responsible (legally) for the 
malfunctioning of the VZW, I assume they would be more prone to see that 
operational stuff would happen correctly too - as they would be 
addressed if there would come complaints... (not talking about "getting 
sued" or "having to pay for stuff" ... just in being the official name 
under it)
Furthermore, having your name under a VZW not working at all... isn't 
something that lifts you up in the meritocracy...
>   
>>  En daar loopt het fout. Een beetje structuur kan geen kwaad. Die
>> lijst ken ik, maar 3/4 van de mensen daarop ken ik niet, hoor ik niet
>> en doen anderen hun taken. Een vzw hoeft daarom niet, maar een
>> verandering in structuur doet zeker niets fout. Integendeel.
>>     
>
> Like I said, the wiki might be outdated...  ;)
>
> If needed we can change that page; we just need other people to stand up
> and say they want to take over a responsibility.
>   
Mmmm... this sound as if the big problem is "updating the wiki" and the 
small side-issue is "to find new people".
We are really having trouble finding people that commit.
And I believe one major reason for that, is the organic structure of 
Ubuntu-be (to say it nicely).

Let's start off with an example: when I joined this mailinglist (few 
weeks before the Intrepid release), I got here because I was looking for 
a LUG to join. Some people suggested me to join this group and ask for 
this. So I did. At the same time, the release parties were being 
organized. In the line of this discussion, I discovered HCC Mechelen, 
and said that I would be glad to come over and check out HCC. I also 
landed on the list of Ubuntu-be volunteers (my own words: but I'm new, 
I'll just look). I got on the list - I got no response on others. Jan, 
you were there too - and up to present, in the perception of the other 
members: I'm still "the spokesman" of Ubuntu-be and "an Ubuntu expert" 
in HCC Mechelen. Actually, I'm neither one of them. If they ask me: "who 
should I address if we want to organize something?" the only answer I 
can give is: "the mailinglist". Now, that's not a very friendly "person" 
- it might be, but it can be very ignorant too if accidentally nobody 
has time. As new persons joining this list are not aware of our headless 
state, I really believe they can go out very frustrated. This resulting 
in a very bad publicity for the "Ubuntu community", which is promoted as 
one of the pilars of Open Source Movements.

Bottom line here: we need some clarity on who's taking what 
responsibilities. It's better to have a "vacant" spot, than having ghost 
names on certain responsabilities.
>   
>> Het idee van Jean om 'teams' op te richten die verantwoordelijk zijn
>> voor bepaalde onderdelen vind ik een uitstekend idee en ik vind dat we
>> daar zeker iets mee moeten doen.
>>     
>
> But, officially such "responsible people" already exist (see that wiki
> page); how will you guarantee the new responsibles will be (-> easy) and
> remain (-> not so easy) better available?
>
>   
My previous analysis/rant aligns perfectly with this question. As we 
can't guarantee volunteers to remain in place, we could try creating an 
environment that stimulates and encourages it. In my short life on this 
list, I've seen a few solid values in this list who are very active - 
some of them with their own limitations.

*Step 1*: Make a roster with the "jobs required" (and "jobs desired" 
next to them in a different color) crossing the available names 
(theoretically: this mailinglist or even the volunteers list). I really 
don't know if this kind of job can be done over IRC or mailinglist - but 
I don't know if a physical meeting is an option either.

*Step 2*: Everyone can fill in the roster for themselves. Possibly 
people could also enter how long they could commit and/or their 
limitations in this (f.e.: not during exam period).

*Step 3*: Fill out the roster and discover the gaps in actual (and 
ideally: their backup) positions. Analyse what spots don't get taken. 
What's the cause? How can we address this? For example:

    * too small actual volunteer base: we notice not enough people
      respond to this call - how could we recruit?
    * job desciption not very clear: (people will the reluctant if they
      don't know what's "in the package")
    * job load too heavy: Can we leave out these tasks? Can we reduce
      the package? Could this job be split up into subtasks?

*Step 4*: A second "shout out" could now go to the list, asking for 
specific people to commit to the last open spots or at least to the most 
essential ones.

But first things first: *Step 0:* get clarity in our mission and our 
means and check if they align. According to my findings on the mailing 
list and web pages I got to this result (correct me if wrong please):

    * *Mission*: Spreading awareness of Ubuntu by facilitating other
      groups to organize events, and organizing a stand at Dipro fairs.
      We're offering webspace (the wiki), promotional material (flyers,
      posters, ...) and volunteers.
    * *Means* (I'm putting some critical questions too)
          o Volunteer map
                + is there any means to know how often this map actually
                  gets used? Maybe there could be a feedback system?
                + If we want the map to work, we need to promote it - if
                  we want to promote it, we need to know for sure it
                  works (the volunteers still are volunteers)
          o Wiki
                + what's the visitor stats on that one?
          o Mailinglist
                + I don't really remember - was there a welcome message
                  briefly explaining what the list is about, and what
                  it's not about?
          o Flyers and posters
                + how do they travel to their destinations?
          o Volunteers
                + how many do we actually have? How many "experts" and
                  how many "regulars"?
                + Are the volunteers we have happy with their work load,
                  or would they prefer a little less?
          o Some cash (is okay, this is rather facilitating - it's not
            something we have to offer to other groups, it's an internal
            mean)
    * *Limitations*
          o Can we sufficiently cater the three language groups? (German
            part is painfully ignored - cause is lack of German speaking
            volunteers - Maybe just address this limitation on your
            German web page, and accept that we won't be catering that
            group. I have no eye on the French part of Belgium)
          o Do we reach our target audience (= groups) and do they reach us?
          o Are "end users" also our target? (troubleshooting and
            installing - do we have the experts? is the map alive)
          o And how about computer shops? (we're always talking about
            Ubuntu preinstalled as being the future... maybe another
            opportunity to highlight the volunteer map if it should
            work? But again: do we have the volunteers? Is the support
            map an option here?)
          o In my opinion, the volunteer map urgently needs to be
            revisited: filtered out and checked on signs of life.
                + a while ago, there was a discussion about some people
                  not wanting to be spammed by being on the list. The
                  opposite is true too: many people would probably want
                  some feedback - just hearing from us every now and
                  then would possibly spark their commitment. I'm
                  greatly in favor of sending them all an "opt-in"
                  e-mail and dropping all the volunteers on the list not
                  responding. We might end up with only 10% of them...
                  but at least we have real volunteers in that case -
                  and not some impressive list with tons of volunteers
                  that have more of a graveyard than of a support group.

I very much like the step taken to create the work groups and try to 
populate them. But the underlying problems aren't addressed. Maybe this 
could be an issue on a wednesday meeting?

As much as I like to think about this, I can't step up to take much 
responsibility here (try to do what I can) ... but I hope my thoughts 
inspire others to dig into it.
So ... getting back on topic: becoming a VZW is not the priority right 
now. The priority is getting our structures right. Turning into a VZW 
right now could kill us.

Jurgen.