Mark,<div> </div><div>What on earth is the point of this email? And more importnatly, why... why is written like a LaRouche pamphlet with random quotations and random highlighting?</div><div> </div><div>The council made a decision to restructure the group because the current "structure" of the group was not functioning in a way that satisfied basic requirements for a healthy group (for a start the basic requirements here: <a href="https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CaliforniaTeam/Leadership">https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CaliforniaTeam/Leadership</a>), and despite a years worth of effort, the group could not find a way to restructure itself. Many of us have been practically begging them to take a proactive role in restructuring the group. It seems to me that the action taken by the council is exactly the sort of action the council exists to perform.</div> <div> </div><div>Though it is extremely difficult to extract the point from the email below, I believe the issue of logging in the channel comes up multiple times. I understand this to be a temporary requirement during the transition period, with permanent rules still being debated in the LoCo council. When you consider that the behavior/language used in the IRC channel does impact how interested newcomers to the channel view the Ubuntu project, it seems to me that the council is well within its right to ask for this temporary logging.</div> <div> </div><div>The other issue that pops up multiple times in your email is the blocking of Neal, Nathan, Grant and Yourself from being nominated in this single election (in one year you are free to be nominated again). This is likely in recognition of the obvious fact that those four people have had the most personal disagreements in the past that lead one way or another to negativity in the group - and if the four were nominated it would be difficult, for me at least, to separate voting based on leadership vs. voting based on the personal issues among the four. For this reason, I support the council's decision to remove the four from nominations.</div> <div> </div><div>So, for love of Ubuntu and the LoCo, instead of complainubg about the council's decisions, lets use this opportunity to overcome our growing pains and to put into place a structure for the LoCo that will make us a more productive and flexible group for the future.</div> <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><div> </div><div>-Jack</div><div> <div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 7:41 AM, Mark Terranova <<a href="mailto:mark@gidgetkitchen.org">mark@gidgetkitchen.org</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"> 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. <div style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;background-color:transparent;margin-left:0px;margin-right:0px"> <div style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;background-color:transparent;margin-left:0px;margin-right:0px">“The Ubuntu community cannot, and does not want to, prescribe which formal structure its local teams should use”</div> </div> 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 -- Ubuntu-us-ca mailing list <a href="mailto:Ubuntu-us-ca@lists.ubuntu.com">Ubuntu-us-ca@lists.ubuntu.com</a> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: <a href="https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-us-ca" target="_blank">https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-us-ca</a> </blockquote></div> </div>