Texas LoCo Team discussion

Brandon Tomlinson thebwt at gmail.com
Mon Nov 30 15:05:46 GMT 2009

You do realize that even Germany and France have only one LoCo team?
Even Russia has a single team! The exception was made to allow US
states to create state teams under.

Another point is that any "TexasTeam" meetings would happen strictly
over IRC, we would never Expect anyone to drive to another city (even
Dallas to Houston), for a meeting. Events are still organized on the
local level. El Paso to Houston road-trip is not something we are even
remotely asking.

You want an advantage to the state team? To get approved, all our
different regional teams can combine documentation and aim towards
approval. so Dallas team, Houston Team, Austin Team all count as one
team for approval needs. Once the state team is approved, every team
under it is automatically approved, because they're a part of

If you guys don't want to use a unified communications medium, that's
your thing, we wont come to your house and dropkick you. But I can't
actually find a reason NOT to do this.... I cannot think of one.

On 11/29/09, Travis Beaty <twbeaty at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello there.  As I said at the meeting, I've only gotten connected with you
> folks (beyond occasionally reading the mailing list postings) within the
> last
> day or so.  And although I spoke a little at the meeting, I'm pretty much
> still in lurker mode.  But, since you asked for it :-D, here are a few
> thoughts that I've had given what little I know about what is going on.
> First, it has been brought up that Texas is an awfully big state.  In fact,
> as
> a state it is larger than the entire country of France.  And our population
> centers aren't clustered in one spot.  Dallas.  Houston.  El Paso.  Austin.
> All in different spots, and in the case of Houston v. El Paso, a helluva
> long
> distance apart.  Now then, it has been said that a lot of the discussion of
> a
> state LoCo has been prompted by the higher up's in Ubuntu's food chain who
> want LoCo's organized by state.  Some of these folks may not fathom how
> large
> Texas actually is, and honestly the idea strikes me as something akin to
> creating a Europe LoCo.
> I am not saying that we shouldn't have a Texas LoCo.  Nor am I saying we
> should.  What I am saying, is that logistics might be a nightmare at times,
> especially when it comes to physical movement, meetings, etc. on a state
> level.  If it's decided to hold a Texas meeting in Houston, that will put
> folks in El Paso, and really even in Dallas, in a bit of a lurch.  Even a
> meeting in Austin (which is pretty much the organization in the middle)
> would
> be rough for many to make it to.  If folks started to feel as if they can
> never make state-level meetings because of the distance, they may begin
> feeling disenfranchised, followed close behind by much drama, crying and
> gnashing of teeth.
> Given this, it was mentioned that perhaps we should thumb our noses at the
> organizers and just do it our own way.  I don't think it needs to come to
> that.  But I do think that we need to try to explain to them the situation.
> El Paso is only *40* miles closer to Houston than it is to Los Angeles.
> Although Texas isn't a "national" entity, it would need to be treated as
> such.
> I'll sum it up again by saying that yes, perhaps a Texas LoCo is a good
> idea.
> But it would through necessity be run -- and perhaps even recognized -- as
> damn near a national LoCo.
> Finally, one other thing that I've learned from experience, because what
> I've
> seen so far is giving me a few flashbacks.  I can't help but notice a lot of
> tension building over the issue, and although we all have emotions and
> positions, everyone on both sides of the fence really need to continue to
> keep
> their cool, stating their positions passionately but respectfully.  One of
> the
> big dangers would be creating a Texas Implosion instead of a Texas LoCo.
> "Dude.  I think we just blew Texas up."
> "Dude.  Who was wearing those smokin' pink boots?"
> That would not be a cool conversation to take place at Canonical.  :-D
> Seriously, though, we should keep the discussion up, and keep our bearings.
> I
> really think there are strengths and weaknesses with either a Texas or
> regional LoCo's, and what those are will become evident with time and
> discussion.
> -- Travis, a.k.a., Muffinx.
> On Sunday 29 November 2009 10:56:31 pm Jeremy Fluhmann wrote:
>> So taking a step back, let's discuss how everyone sees the Texas LoCo Team
>> moving forward.  I've only been around the Ubuntu groups for just under 3
>> years, but I was around when the move was made to have only state level
>> "approved" teams.  I'm sure it wasn't as big a deal to me since I wasn't
>> part of an existing regional group.  I pretty much had the same role then
>>  as I'm taking now with contributing to a state team effort.
>> From my understanding, the existing regional groups were contacted prior
>> to
>> this big push for a state level team.  A couple of the regional groups
>> were
>> not interested and I'm thinking this may be were the "feeling of being
>> left
>> out / bypassed" is coming from.  Maybe?  I don't know, but that would be
>> my
>> impression.  If someone says that they're not interested, I would guess
>>  that they weren't interested.
>> Something that keeps being mentioned (and was mentioned two years ago when
>> these same conversations took place) is "I don't see the benefit of a
>> state
>> loco over a regional loco".  I'm probably backwards, but I've been trying
>>  to see the benefit of a regional loco over a state loco.  There's already
>>  a well established Linux User Group nearby where I live and I don't see
>>  where starting Yet Another Regional LoCo out here would benefit anyone.
>>  I'm one of the ones where all of my LoCo involvement would continue to be
>>  with the Texas LoCo Team, and all of my regional Linux stuff would be
>> with
>>  my friendly neighborhood LUG.  I wouldn't encourage a regional LoCo out
>>  here, but I also wouldn't discourage one.  If someone wanted to start one
>>  out here, that's fine, but my focus would still be towards the state
>>  group. Again, it sounds like I may be in the minority.  And I'm okay with
>>  that :-)
>> I'm glad that we're getting some good discussion in one place, out in the
>> open.  I encourage everyone, including those that would consider
>> themselves
>> self-proclaimed "lurkers" to contribute their thoughts.  I see
>>  conversations on IRC getting better at directing people to move some
>>  discussions to this mailing list.  I'm similar to Lee in that I keep up
>>  with the list more than I do with most of the other channels.  I'm also
>> on
>>  IRC and IM most of the day, too.
>> Cheers,
>> Jeremy
> --
> Ubuntu-us-tx mailing list
> Ubuntu-us-tx at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-us-tx

More information about the Ubuntu-us-tx mailing list