[Ubuntu-US-CA] "The Ubuntu community cannot, and does not want to, prescribe which formal structure its local teams should use”

[Mark Terranova]

When I spoke to the council about our problems here in California, I asked
for help. At no time did I ask for happiness to be enforced.



Then, as now, I expressed my concern at decision that were made in private. I
was under the impression that for the group to function, major decisions
should be made in public.



Logging is an important part of some schemes that practice radical
transparency. This is not just a one way street though. Logging is not
required for ALL in Ubuntu, the choice is left to the team Forthrightness is
reasonable to expect from our leaders. This road is not a comfortable one by
any means. that would require transparency all the way to the top of the
chain. The group should have expectations of those that watch over iit.



.

The Cali team is being told, when, where, and most importantly *who* they
should vote for.  The council has seen fit to prescribe a new *structure*
for the Team.







How was this list arrived at? Who made the decisions? Who almost made the
list? As you may already know, my name has been put on the chalkboard with a
few other  miscreants. For a democratic  election mind you. Neal broke no
actual laws in this state. He is a decent person. He was over-reaching as
leader at worst.  Maybe this whole experience has helped him learn that.
Maybe that is a moot point, since people might not vote for him. The group
has absolutely NO choice here. If he was so horrible, what would be the harm
in letting him run? (Who would vote for him.) People here wanted equality
for all, the idea of making him less than, is unfairly punitive and
certainly not humane.



As far as myself, I have publicly said there is ZERO chance I would want to
be in charge of anything here at the present time. That's still true.



Publicly calling out Nathan and Grant is unforgivable. I know that neither
of them relishes the idea of having their names immortalized on the *team*
ML. (My personal standing and rep are not the foremost in my mind.) These
gentlemen place much value on how they are viewed by others. Both of them
are tireless in their actions for FOSS. Google their names- see what they
do, its really cool stuff. Both of them volunteer to teach folks the ways of
Open Source. Always ready to hand out the Ubuntu CDs, constantly looking for
an opportunity to recruit new members. They both do something near and dear
to my heart, they spend time working with charities; donating hardware to
those most in need.



“The Ubuntu community cannot, and does not want to, prescribe which formal
structure its local teams should use”



Stuff happens, mistakes are easily made. It is better to catch them soon
rather than down the road. No harm no foul. Part of the reason we are here
now is due to my actions - I accept that. I distance myself from the current
fiasco. We wanted parity, not a Thermidorian Reaction.



As I put forth a while ago, having a triumvirate would be the best way to
help the group lead itself. We have chance to start things here with no
animosity. In the spirit of making things anew, I offer an apology to Neal.
Redemption is always possible. I nominate him to help us lead the group in a
new direction. If we are claiming to have a democracy, lets not do it in
name only. If the reply to that is term limits; so be it. make *that* the
reason he can't run. Not vague accusations by un-named people. And
for god-sakes, please let nhaines and grantbow off the hook. Besmirching
their character without *actual reasons* defined is not fair. I accept the
albatross around my neck; it is of my own doing. making them wear one for
sins of another is shameful, and most definitely not in keeping with the
Spirit of Ubuntu.



I am begging the Council to please reconsider their over-reaching actions,
and let this election be a FREE one, not mired in taint and shades of
pettiness. The reason for their quick actions is admirable, the rationale
for tossing Nathan and Grant into the darkness is dubious at best.



There is a defined process that helps people contribute to decisions
regarding the Ubuntu community and distribution. It should be clear who is
responsible for any given decision, and how others might contribute to the
making of it.

Decisions regarding the Ubuntu distribution and community are taken in a
fair and transparent fashion.



"Freedom to reject is the only freedom."

SALMAN RUSHDIE
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-us-ca/attachments/20101006/75504246/attachment.html>