No subject

fine. I like the idea of education weeks and trying to do a national
event would be fun. For those types of things I think we need a 'leader'
to coordinate the efforts. That could just as easily be done by the
project lead. Once the US has teams in each state, this project is over
as far as it's original intent. If it evolves into something else great,
but that is a discussion in and of itself (that needs to be discussed
soon from the list I've seen).

However I don't see a leader as having any real power in a group like
this as it is really a support group more than an active group. We need
a contact so when something needs to be done from the greater community
standpoint one person can be contacted. That person has to be trusted to
make the straight forward decisions and have a regular IRC meeting for
the bigger choices.

Joe Terranova wrote:
> Then we can discuss not having a leader at the meeting. But if we're
> only going to only have a team contact, then we should clarify what
> authority a team contact has -- that being not much at all. That lack
> of authority should be enforced, even in times of conflict.
>
> On Nov 25, 2007 11:11 PM, Aaron Toponce <aaron.toponce at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> Why all the politics?  Let's just run the project as a project as we've
>> been doing for the past 11 months.  Creating leadership positions are
>> just telling me that someone needs power to make decisions and put
>> people in their place, as there seem to be some dissensions amongst
>> members.  Let's keep our focus on the core of the project- to get state
>> locos approves, not create leaders and councils and bureaucracy.