[ubuntu-marketing] Clear new leadership

John Botscharow info at jbotscharow.com
Thu Jun 12 01:57:09 BST 2008

Hash: SHA1


On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:57:31 -0500
"John Vilsack" <vilsack at gmail.com> wrote:

> > You cannot expect to publish a document of that size less than 24
> > hours before a meeting and expect to have it adopted.
> > The document was not included as a discussion topic in the Agenda -
> > and before you ask, the Agenda is a wiki page that can be modified
> > by any member of the general public.
> >
> > Furthermore, you had the opportunity to raise the issue at the end
> > of the meeting when, as chair of the meeting, I asked if there were
> > any other issues to be raised.
> >
> >
> I was under the impression that the topic was going to be addressed.
> Several times during the meeting, you  made mention that the document
> was not to be discussed until the end. When we reached the topic you
> stressed that you felt that this was inappropriate and needed to be
> pushed off.
> I absolutely respect your role and value as moderator for the
> meetings and I do not have any qualms with that.  I did not expect my
> document to be accepted, but I do appreciate constructive criticism
> about what is right with it while helping me contour it to what you
> believe is more in line with what you have come to expect from this
> project.
> >
> > As to the specifics of the document, I'll respond to one single
> > point and leave it to others to add their own comment.
> >
> > Your proposal calls for the following roles:
> >
> >    # Executive Director
> >    # Communications Director
> >    # The Repository Director
> >    # Local Communities Director
> >    # LoCo Envoy
> >    # Philosophy Director
> >    # Canonical Envoy
> >    # Art and Media Director
> >    # Development Director
> >    # The Media Director
> >
> > There are other roles buried in the text.
> >
> > Just in case you were actually seriously proposing this list of
> > roles, there were 17 people who actively spoke in the meeting,
> > three of which were bots. I suspect that you will find out very
> > quickly that you will have a team full of directors an no-one left
> > to lead.
> >
> >
> >
> Actually, I think if you do the math, then what I am proposing makes
> perfect sense.
> Based on your numbers, there are 17 people who were vocal during the
> meeting.  These are the people who felt that what they had to say was
> something that could help shape the direction of the project.
> The point that is missing from the facts above is that there were 129
> users in the room at the conclusion of the meeting!  129 users (some
> bots) that cared to be there to listen to what we had to say at that
> particular moment in time.  There are many people on this list like
> Simon Schneebeli that don't want to listen to all our noise and
> instead want to focus on tasks and what they can do to accomplish
> something for the project.
> I don't believe what you meant to say was that only us willing to be
> chatterboxes are the ones willing to do anything. Even if all 17 of
> the talkers wanted to "lead" a project, that leaves over 6 additional
> people per project to contribute.  Assuming that all eight of the
> positions you listed above were filled with project leads and had
> projects to do, that would leave a smidge over 16 users per
> project...sounds to me like a team.
> Yes, I placed a bunch of roles on that list...so let's pare it down a
> bit. I bet we can look at it a bit differently if we have a more
> positive attitude about the idea:
>   # Executive Director
>    # Communications Director
>    # The Repository Director
>    # Local Communities Director
>    # LoCo Envoy
>    # Philosophy Director
>    # Canonical Envoy
>    # Art and Media Director
>    # Development Director
>    # The Media Director
> I bet whoever takes Executive Direction should probably have a
> concise idea of the philosophy behind the project.  So let's combine
> Philosophy Director with ED.
> One down.
> Communications is meant to govern things like a task tracker and the
> like, which could also be a role of oversight for the person who
> controls the subversion repository of documentation.
> Two more roles combined.
> The Canonical Envoy, LoCo Envoy, and Development Envoy (mistype in the
> proposal) are all members of other core groups that are here for
> advisory roles, not active directorships.
> Adios to three more on the list.
> Let's have a look at that list again:
>    # Executive Director
>    # Technologies Director (was Comm/Repo)
>    # Local Communities Director
>    # Art Director
>    # Media Director
> Advisors
>    # LoCo Envoy
>    # Canonical Envoy
>    # Development Envoy
> So now, with just a few minutes of thinking this through, I was able
> to condence it to Cory's magive number of 3-5.  We would probably
> want a leader for the Spread Ubuntu campaign in there too for good
> measure, but that's neither here nor there.
> I'm not calling for a rigid hierarchy.  The core-marketers would have
> to follow the same philosophical mandates as the rest of the
> project.  Anything and everything these people do should be approved
> through a consensus just like everything else.  But now you have
> established points of contact to help build our group and that focus
> intently on what is important to their areas.
> I think there is a solid base for leadership that has already
> presented itself.  What I am asking for is for you all to realize
> that with a little bit of infrastructure, you can begin rapid
> development of your own projects and see clear results sooner than
> later.
> Thanks,
> John Vilsack

- -- 

Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)


More information about the ubuntu-marketing mailing list