[Ubuntu-US-CA] Asking For Opinion: Leadership Appointment Process
Troy.Ready at rezitech.com
Wed Mar 10 04:44:52 UTC 2010
Seriously? It's crap like this that makes LoCo communication in any form painful.
From: ubuntu-us-ca-bounces at lists.ubuntu.com [mailto:ubuntu-us-ca-bounces at lists.ubuntu.com] On Behalf Of Alan Ostlund
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 20:28
To: Ubuntu US California
Subject: Re: [Ubuntu-US-CA] Asking For Opinion: Leadership Appointment Process
I apologize for voting. I didn't know you had to be a Mo-Betta to vote.
I agree, there should be some by laws. As mention in this reply, you
don't get a vote unless you are a member of a special group. Is that
like only landed gentry have a vote? Does this work like everyone gets
a vote, but not the women, like in some other countries, or this one
earlier last century?
What does it take, exactly, to be able to vote on this issue?
P.S. I was never very good at keeping my mouth shut, when I am told
there are different classes of people.
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 14:31 -0800, Robert Wall wrote:
> -1. While I'm glad that we've gotten to the point that we can sanely
> have this discussion, I disagree with Jono's proposal for similar
> reasons to David and Jack:
> On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 10:24 AM, David Wondelry ~DarkwingDuck~
> <ubuntu at darkwingduck.org> wrote:
> > This is why I feel this course of action is like a very small band-aid
> > to a larger problem. What should be done is a set of bylaws on how to
> > deal with issues, leadership and how to conduct business. Changing
> > leaders will not solve this issue.
> This proposal does little to address the root issues this team has,
> and opens us up to some huge possible pitfalls:
> A) It does not define what the responsibilities of the team leader
> are, how decisions are made within the team, or what should happen if
> the team leader has a conflict of interest and thus can't participate
> in a decision.
> B) It does not describe desperately-needed processes for dispute
> resolution. This team has issues that have been unresolved for...
> what, a year now?... because we do not have anything in place to look
> at them and make a final decision. Disputes are going to happen.
> Sometimes, they'll involve the team's leader. Even if you rotate the
> team's leader, there are very few people on this team that I've never
> heard disagree with someone, and they probably would once given the
> stress of power ;)
> C) This team does not have a defined membership population. In
> Ubuntu-in-general, the people who get to vote for stuff are Ubuntu
> Members. They have to go through a process to get to be one. It's thus
> difficult for someone to manipulate Ubuntu elections by ballot
> stuffing or getting their friends (who don't do anything LoCo-related)
> to sign up and vote the way they want, or create multiple accounts,
> or... yeah, you get the idea.
> In the LoCo, the only barrier to participation that I can think of is
> that the Launchpad group requires approval to get into, which
> currently (as I understand it; this isn't written down formally afaik)
> consists of me, Neal, or Nathan asking 1) Does your account profile
> consist of spam links to foreign drug sites?, 2) Does it look like
> you're just joining teams to collect shiny group icons? Not exactly a
> high barrier to entry. There is nothing saying who does and does not
> have enough team contribution or team association to be able to vote.
> Saying "everyone" is not an acceptable solution, because as I've said,
> it leaves us wide open to abuse.
> This is an issue in other elections, like the Ubuntu IRC Council
> election that happened recently. In that case, leaders were picked by
> the Community Council, not voted on by the general IRC population.
> That is, as far as I'm aware, the regular way to deal with this
> situation in Ubuntu. I'm not necessarily saying it's a good idea in
> this case, but it (and the issues I raised above) deserve
> D) Voting once a year would likely *increase*, rather than decrease,
> the politics and other stupidity that happens on a regular basis on
> this team. There's enough bickering already without adding the
> additional motive of "If I win this small victory, I'll look better
> next year when I try for leadership!".
> I was going to spend longer thinking about this, but the large number
> of +1 convinced me that I should probably not postpone it so the
> people who don't spend absurd amounts of time thinking about things
> like this wouldn't get swept up in the positiveness. Now that I check
> my email this morning, I see others have already broken the trend for
> me, but anyway :)
> As for what others have said already:
> I have problems figuring that mapping out too, actually. I generally
> look for their Launchpad page (which often has IRC nick and realname),
> or ask in PM, apologizing for my bad memory. If that's too direct,
> feel free to PM me (rww) if I'm around and we can try to figure it out
> In general, it might be a good idea if people replying to this thread
> put their IRC nicks (if they have one) by their names at the bottom of
> the email.
> I agree that this process is confusing, but feel it reflects the
> confusing nature of the problems in the team. I think you hit upon one
> of the reasons we urgently need to resolve these problems: the
> complexity of working within the existing team is likely turning away
> newcomers to the team.
> I disagree with your characterization of the issues; I don't think
> it's a NorCal-SoCal split so much as a difference in individual
> opinions. I do, however, agree with your assertion that we need bylaws
> to deal with issues, and that simply changing leaders will not solve
> our problems.
> I agree with you that a set of bylaws would go a long way towards
> fixing the problems I outlined above. I agree with most of your
> proposal, though as I mentioned above, I have reservations about using
> Launchpad membership as a definition of who is eligible to vote. I
> also dislike the focus on peoples' regions, as it would tend to
> further the image that we have North California vs. South California
> Thanks for the replies thusfar, and for the time people are spending
> reading, thinking, and writing about these issues. I hope this thread
> continues to be a reasoned discussion of the issues involved.
> ~ Robert Wall (rww)
Ubuntu-us-ca mailing list
Ubuntu-us-ca at lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-us-ca
More information about the Ubuntu-us-ca