Again, it seems as if Alex has his facts wrong. I did not call for the vote. A vote was called for by members who did not know we had a leader. Alex had disappeared for a month+ and to be honest, never really acted as a leader. His behaviour continues to suggest that he has only himself and his reputation in mind. Since the vote was called for Alex suddenly had time again for the group and came back expecting everything to be left off where it was when he left. The group had moved on and responsibilities, including those for the webpage changed hands. I simply put my hat in the ring for the leadership/contact position. There were others who, via the mailing list, gave reasons that they not run. This was a community decision that was well on track until Alex showed up. Alex is the single dissenting voice. That is a disruption. Alex needs to accept the will of the group and lets move on. The group came up with the rules, timeline and medium for the vote and I am happy it. Talking about consequences is perfectly legitimate. we cannot have people, in the spirit of the community, working for only themselves. Maybe there was a tone issue on the email but we are all bound by the consequences of our actions. that is all I was saying. This is very sad. What was an effort, by the community, to try to get itself back on track and it is about to be derailed by a single person. I will reiterate what I have said to the group...If what I am doing is not in the best interest of the group then I would be happy to take my name of the list. This was met with a quick: "no please don't do that" Matthias, I would encourage you to stop by the IRC room and talk with the guys if you would like to get a better feeling of the group. This vote is not to solve personal problems, although it does seem like we now have some. Andrew <div>On 4/30/05, Matthias Urlichs <<a href="mailto:smurf@smurf.noris.de">smurf@smurf.noris.de</a>> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> Hi, Alex Combas: > Matthias Urlichs wrote: > > > main problem is one of semantics -- "leader" can be "one who leads by > > setting an example for others" (so that others follow by their own free > > will), or "one who tells others what to do" (so that others are coerced > > to do what the leader wants). > > Matthias, can you please explain to me what exactly > the "LoCo Team Contact" job is all about? > See the UDU wiki page, <a href="http://udu.wiki.ubuntu.com/LoCoTeamProcess">http://udu.wiki.ubuntu.com/LoCoTeamProcess</a> > Is this just a thinly veiled disguise for the term "Leader" or not? > Definitely not. > Personally I dont think LoCo Groups need a leader, we should just > co-operate as a group. > That depends on the group. > > *If* there is more than one person to whom that term (again, in its first > > sense) applies to, *then* it is appropriate to conduct a vote. > > So if there is more than one person who is leading by example then we need > to have a vote? "appropriate" != "need to". > This whole idea of a vote bugs me. > To clarify my thoughts on the matter: The idea of solving interpersonal problems by voting is flawed. > [ history ] > I won the vote, you saw that I won because you were on the mailing list.. > I may or may not have actually noticed -- can't remember at the moment; I was plenty busy. :-/ > Next thing I knew almost two months had gone by and Andrew is again calling > for a vote. > I agree that that seems inappropriate. -- Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | <a href="mailto:smurf@smurf.noris.de">smurf@smurf.noris.de</a> -- ubuntu-ca mailing list <a href="mailto:ubuntu-ca@lists.ubuntu.com"> ubuntu-ca@lists.ubuntu.com</a> <a href="http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-ca">http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-ca</a> </blockquote></div> -- ---------------------------------------------------- Gmail - Hits the spot! :-)