I believe the issue is more about defining when a leader is inactive. If there is not time on Thursday, I feel, that it can be pushed back a month. But for the health of the loco it is something that must be addressed soon. <blockquote type="cite">On Aug 3, 2010 2:12 PM, "Zach Gibbens" <<a href="mailto:infocop411@gmail.com">infocop411@gmail.com</a>> wrote: The August 5th Meeting starts at 8PM for EDT & 7PM for CDT, there are two items on the agenda, but honestly, I think we'll only have time for one, it's an important & potentially long meeting, since we have term limits & re-elections on the agenda we nominated members as part of our last meeting (we assumed that those elected were allowed to run as re-election, on the condition they were still eligible) Elections: nominated is wrst & cyberanger (with w4ett up for re-election, & I assume that means he can run as he was nominated & then elected) netritious & jfenn2199 nominated, with ericG for re-election nominate wrst & Xpistos for Middle tn poc with pace_t_zulu up for re-election nominate ragonarkangel & linuxman410 for east tn poc with cyberanger (me) up for re-election Discuss potential change in term limits or protocol for inactivity in Trustee and PoCs The issue is when a leader is inactive, or at least hard to contact, they are supposed to gracefully step down (based on the Leadership Code of Conduct <a href="http://www.ubuntu.com/community/leadership-conduct" target="_blank">http://www.ubuntu.com/community/leadership-conduct</a> ) as stated in the lcoc "Stepping Down The Ubuntu Code of Conduct discusses the importance of gracefully stepping down from a position. This is particularly important for leaders who are responsible for decisions or specific processes - for example, if your participation is needed to reach quorum in a team council. If someone in a leadership role does not have time to fulfill their role temporarily, they should warn their team in advance. If an absence becomes extended, they should step down from their leadership position until they have more time to follow through. Similarly, leaders should step down gracefully -- as described in the Code of Conduct. When someone takes on a leadership position in Ubuntu, they are making a commitment to step down gracefully and to ensure that others on the team can easily continue where they leave off. Note that this is less important in cases where the leadership role does not "block" decisions while the person is absent. For example, if you are one of a team of 50 list moderators, then an extended absence does not mean you should necessarily step down, because decisions will not be blocked by you not being there. Conversely, if your leadership seat is essential for decisions, then extended absences should be very carefully managed, and you should consider stepping down or at least nominating a stand-in while you will be away." I'm still trying to figure out what the goal there is, adjusting the 1 year term limit, or define inactivity better, so that all leaders know when they are hindering group progress or are inactive for too long. (adding a personal thought, we are in a recession where lives & careers seem to cause some chaos, so any decision could cause more stress to this issue if done lightly, so tread carefully or hold this one back a month) -- Ubuntu-US-TN mailing list <a href="mailto:Ubuntu-US-TN@lists.ubuntu.com">Ubuntu-US-TN@lists.ubuntu.com</a> <a href="https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-us-tn" target="_blank">https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-us-tn</a> </blockquote>