ubuntu-us-ohio team mailing list archive

[Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@xxxxxxxxxx>]

OK. There have been no objections. It's been 2 weeks, we're moving
forward with this.

[RESOLVED] - Create a 3 person leadership team ( hereafter called "the
council" )
[RESOLVED] - Cycle the contact between the council members

I will now consider this a call for Council candidates.

-Paul


On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 12:57 AM, Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hey LoCoHiO,
>
> As ya'll know, we had a meeting. It went quite well ( even though I
> was at work, and quite absent, I was there in spirit )
>
> I've pasted logs for team digestion below my email.
>
> Here are the main points:
>
>
>  - Creation of a 3-person council team to replace current "BDFL" ( me
> ). Restore the team to it's old council-run status. Sorry about
> unintentionally overthrowing the government, ya'll.
>
>  - Cycled contact ( or group contact ( this is OK, providing we have
> the "metaperson" filled out as contact ) ) The contact would be the
> "speaker" of the council, but not any more "powerful" then the other
> council members.
>
>  - The Council will *not* ( necessarily ) be composed of
> -us-ohio-buckeyes. Open to everyone and anyone.
>
> As William puts it:
>
> <BiosElement> LoCO will be lead by a 3 person council, elected every year.
> Members can be reelected an infinite number of times. Members will be
> removed/replaced if inactive for more then 3 months. Basically agreed?
>
>
> I'd really like to get some conversation going. Are there major
> objections with the *direction* of moving the team to a council-run
> entity? Logistically, this is fine from the "LoCo Major" point of view
> -- this is purely internal.
>
>
> Please read through the logs, raise points. Baring *major* and
> *blocking* objections, we will go forward with this. If someone can
> raise a well-thought out and logical stance against this, we will have
> to put it on hold and work through the issues.
>
>
> Order No. 227: Not a step back! ( Ни шагу назад! )
>
> Fondly, and with Love,
> Paul
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: William Chambers
> Date: Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 11:03 PM
> Subject: Logs of the Meeting
> To: Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> Enjoy! They go clear down to where you asked for logs. ^_^
>
> <jacob> allrighty, let's get this started I 'spose
> <jacob> -----
> <tnseditor> okey dokey :P
> <jacob> so this is going to be pretty informal, but hopefully informative and
> productive
> --> gilbert (~gilbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) has
> joined #ubuntu-us-oh
> *** Mode #ubuntu-us-oh +v gilbert by ChanServ
> --> dvz- (~dVz@ubuntu/member/dvz-) has joined #ubuntu-us-oh
> <jacob> hey gilbert
> <gilbert> hey jacob
> -*- spwelton bangs gavel ??
> <BiosElement> Good timing gilbert
> <mathay> Hey dvz-and gilbert
> <gilbert> did i miss anything?
> <canthus13> gilbert: the bees.
> <gilbert> i know i'm late :-/
> <tnseditor> horribly late... you missed everything! :P
> <jacob> the idea brought up on the mailing list by BiosElement, linked in the
> other messages for this meeting, was brought up at columbus u-hr
> <jacob> no worries gilbert
> <dvz-> lo there mathay
> <dmcglone> gilbert: better late than never
> <dvz-> how are you?
> <mathay> I'm well, I'm well.
> <dvz-> Good to hear.
> <thafreak> keep going jacob, I'm paying attention
> -*- BiosElement pays attention to the meeting >.>
> <jacob> lolz
> <dvz-> There's a meeting?
> <canthus13> dvz-: yep. right now, as a matter of fact.
> <BiosElement> dvz-, Yes, Now.
> <jacob> BiosElement / gilbert feel free to jump in with suggestions
> <jacob> everyone else as well
> <BiosElement> jacob, Not sure what suggestions you want, at least that were
> not already covered on the email. Unless we want to go over those?
> <jacob> the overall thought is that instead of having a defined contact for the
> team, we have a group of people to lead it. no one person is relied on, so if
> someone is MIA there's no big issue.
> -*- dmcglone is turning up hearing aid
> <jacob> BiosElement: pretty much that
> <canthus13> Hmm.. sorta like a RAID array for leadership, eh?
> <jacob> this is sort of how things are right now
> <jacob> canthus13: there you go
> <BiosElement> canthus13, Sums it up perfectly.
> <spwelton> we'll call it a RAIL: Redundant Array of Independent Leaders
> <jacob> we'd like to get overall feedback on this idea, people's thoughts, and
> get the details down
> <canthus13> :D
> <Cheri703> my question would be how do you choose who those people are?
> <gilch> how defined will the group be?
> <jacob> launchpad is being stupid at the moment; i was going to bring up the
> original message for this but it won't let me in
> <BiosElement> gilch, Very. As in my ideas was 3 people.
> <mathay>  I think it'd be easier to comment if there was more information
> given. I mean, I like what I hear so far but that isn't much.
> <jacob> mathay: that's what we're here to develop
> <jacob> a more concrete plan
> <dmcglone> I'm with mathay
> <greyfox1> spwelton, great idea. I love it.
> <BiosElement> dmcglone, That's the point of this meeting >.>
> <jacob> here's the original message from BiosElement if you want to read up on
> the initial proposal: https://lists.launchpad.net/ubuntu-us-ohio/msg00663.html
> <mathay> So, several leaders, rotating contact?
> <gilch> i like the idea, as long as the group is small and defined
> <thafreak> as long as I don't get RAIL'd
> <jacob> mathay: it could be that
> <BiosElement> gilch, The idea was to keep it small enough so we could all be
> in touch easily, but not so small that all the load falls to a single person.
> <jacob> it was brought up that this group should be made up of the ReLoCo
> leads, as they already hold positions around the state and know what's going
> on in the team
> <gilbert> the other item we need to solve is whether we should be selecting
> the team contact by election
> <gilbert> but we can get to that later
> <BiosElement> jacob, Problem is we'd have a ton of members then. I think the
> task of ReLoCo Lead and 'LoCo Council' for lack of a better term, are pretty
> different things.
> <jacob> BiosElement: good point.
> <Cheri703> perhaps I don't know what all is involved in "running" a loco, what
> things are different? what things on a "council" level need to be handled by
> those people?
> <gilch> i agree, BiosElement
> <spwelton> I think tasking the ReLoCo leads as part of this council would be
> good because it sets up a tree type system... Also it would give the ReLoCo's
> aim, make each member have more say in the LoCo overall, I would think
> <gilbert> BiosElement: i agree as well.  we have like 8 reloco leads, and will
> probably add more soon.  if we're going to have a council, it should be
> small...like 3 ppl max
> <spwelton> good point
> <jacob> Cheri703: with ohio, not a whole lot; we're fairly well self-led
> <BiosElement> Cheri703, The 'council' would be basically 'team contact' as
> well as 'overall loco organizer' for larger events such as OLF or bigger plans
> then a ReLoCo's scope would be.
> <dmcglone> how about having leads for each region
> <Cheri703> hmm...ok
> <canthus13> dmcglone: ...like ReLoCo leads?
> <spwelton> regional managers?
> <BiosElement> dmcglone, We already do basically, ReLoCo Leads.
> <dmcglone> thats true
> <tnseditor> Only one person can be the official Canonical contact, right?  We
> would still need one main person
> <jacob> we may want to check with the LoCo council on the possibility of
> having just a team as a contact, or if they want a single person. but I'm
> pretty sure it's possible, and in use by other teams
> <BiosElement> tnseditor, That's perhaps not true, but we 'can' just rotate
> contact as needed.
> <gilbert> spwelton: i don't like that, it makes the org too top heavy and
> heirachical
> <tnseditor> ok
> <mathay> Rotate the contact.
> <gilbert> tnseditor: i think a council mailing list can be team contact as
> well.  it doesn't have to be a single person
> <tnseditor> ok
> -*- gilbert wishes paultag was in attendance
> <dmcglone> I like that gilbert
> <mathay>  Say, every three months or so?
> <BiosElement> Even if we 'can't have a team as contact, we can rotate it. So
> it's really a mute point.
> <BiosElement> *moot
> <dmcglone> mathay that wouldn't work for someone like me
> <jacob> logistically, as the team is set up at this moment, the team contact
> is set as ubuntu-us-ohio-buckeyes, which is made up of reloco leads, ubuntu
> members, and canonical folk
> <jacob> so I think we're already "team contact" at the moment -- but it's not
> well-defined
> <dmcglone> why not have 3 or 4 or 5 people distribute the workload, but only 1
> will do the distributing
> <BiosElement> Why don't we just assume for the time being the 'council' will
> be loco contact and deal with the technicalities later?
> <mathay> Yeah, needs to be an Ubuntu member as well.
> <BiosElement> mathay, Actually not entirely correct.
> <jacob> mathay: or aspiring to be one, iirc
> <BiosElement> mathay, They need to 'aspire' to be an ubuntu member
> <gilbert> dmcglone: the workload isn't that high, so the problem isn't
> distrubuting it.  the problem is whether it should be a single person's role
> or multiple
> <thafreak> Wait, do ReLoCo leads need to be ubuntu members as well?
> <BiosElement> thafreak, No
> <mathay> Does 'aspite' denote being in the progress of becoming a member?
> <dmcglone> Ok gilbert gotcha
> <mathay> *process not progress
> <gilbert> thafreak: reloco leads do not
> <BiosElement> mathay, Not from how I read it.
> <jacob> mathay: nobody's set that rule, really. it could be however you
> interpret it.
> <gilbert> thafreak: in fact team contact does not as well, but should be
> aspiring to be one
> <thafreak> gotcha...
> <mathay> jacob & BiosElement: fantastic. That simplifies things. :)
> <jacob> mathay: we may want to ask the LoCo council for a clear definition,
> really
> <gilbert> jacob: lets just ask paultag ;)
> <jacob> gilbert: heh, good point
> <mathay> jacob: agreed, agreed.
> <mathay> If he was in the house, I'd just throw something at him.
> <BiosElement> jacob, It wouldn't be a problem for long anyway, since 6 months
> helping the loco should net them membership anyway. >.>
> <jacob> indeed.
> <jacob> so -- let's get a general idea for people's opinion: are we all in
> favor of a council-led team?
> <gilbert> so, personally i'm in favor of a 3 person council, which (i believe)
> is how the loco was set up in 2007
> <thafreak> I still like the council idea, with one person being sort of...the
> "chairperson" so to speak maybe?
> <BiosElement> I'm in strong favor of a council lead team.
> <locyaw> in favor of the council as well
> <mathay> jacob: I am in favor of that.
> -*- dmcglone in favor also
> -*- thafreak aye
> <gilch> in favor
> <tnseditor> sounds good
> <greyfox1> approve
> <Cheri703> sure
> <BiosElement> Well it seems pretty clear cut to me.
> <jacob> allrighty, so we're a step forward.
> <Cheri703> yeah, but now you have to figure out 3 instead of 1 :)
> <jacob> now back to the discussion of how it's set up; gilbert just mentioned
> the 3-person setup from 2007, which sounds like an idea
> <gilbert> and i don't think council members need to be reloco leads, but if
> not they should be making demonstrable contiributions elsewhere
> <jacob> gilbert: I fully agree.
> <gilch> agree
> -*- thafreak also agrees, reloco leads should be separate from the council
> <BiosElement> gilbert, The simple solution IMO is to just vote in 3 members
> instead of just one. 6 or 12 month terms sound workable for me. In the event
> one goes inactive for 3+ months, hold another election.
> <mathay> I'm willing to see how that works too.
> -*- dmcglone agrees
> <jacob> that sounds like a workable plan, I'd be in favor of longer "terms" so
> that more groundwork can be laid, but I like the sound of it
> <Cheri703> we can offer the option to re-elect
> <dmcglone> BiosElement: maybe have another within the 3 step up
> <BiosElement> jacob, An election shouldn't be a 'big' deal like it is now. You
> can always be reelected anyway.
> <gilch> jacob, yes to longer terms
> <BiosElement> dmcglone, What do you mean 'step up'?
> <jacob> BiosElement: I suppose you're right
> <thafreak> Perhaps more like supreme court terms? For life or until they
> decide to step down?
> <BiosElement> thafreak, No. I strongly dislike. >.>
> <spwelton> yes, you are bound to the ubuntu loco for LIFE
> <thafreak> How about with the option to impeachment
> <jacob> :P
> <dmcglone> BiosElement: suppose we have 3 and one goes inactive, one of the
> other 2 will move into the inactives place if he was above, and then bring
> someone else in
> <gilbert> thafreak: in an ideal world, that would be great, but there's the
> danger of getting 3 ppl in there that just don't work well or don't do
> anything
> <BiosElement> dmcglone, That's a good idea, but It may cause friction
> <thafreak> impeach them :)
> <dmcglone> what I'm thinking is having ranks within the 3
> <BiosElement> gilbert, That's what reelections are for. I don't see why the
> loco couldn't decide they were sick of them. :P
> <thafreak> we the people just revolt ;)
> <Cheri703> ranking everything top to bottom gets tedious
> <BiosElement> dmcglone, I'd really rather have them on equal terms. That's the
> reason for the odd number.
> <BiosElement> dmcglone, If the debate is 'that' big, the loco as a whole can
> deal with it I think. We're big enough for that anymore.
> <thafreak> I guess terms are fine...
> <gilch> i'm in favor of the 1yr, equal terms
> <jacob> I don't think we need to worry too much about ranks or "impeachment"
> -- if something goes wrong, there's the LCC
> <greyfox1> jacob, lcc?
> <jacob> ideally we'd want to make this a painless process
> <jacob> greyfox1: loco council
> <BiosElement> I'm in favor of 1yr, equal terms with the possibility of re-
> elections.
> -*- thafreak likes painless
> <jacob> (meaning we don't use launchpad votes to set this up :P)
> <dmcglone> 1yr works for me also, it gives enough time for them to make a
> positive impact
> <thafreak> We do need a place to collect votes
> <gilch> also like the possibility of re-election
> <gilbert> personally, i don't like setting terms and having elections since it
> is somewhat painful
> <BiosElement> thafreak, Why not the mailing list for now?
> <dmcglone> I can throw a website together with a simple voting system
> <BiosElement> gilbert, Elections don't have to be painful though.
> <canthus13> Meh. there are votebots out there that could be adapted..
> <thafreak> How about gpg signed votes :)
> <jacob> canthus13: that's where things step into the "painful" area
> <BiosElement> gilbert, If the team is doing good, everyone's active and happy,
> no reason the same members won't stay there. But if other members are doing
> things better or making a diff then they'll be elected to replace those who
> aren't doing so good.
> <spwelton> thafreak:  yes
> <thafreak> then Cheri703 would finally have a reason to set them up
> <canthus13> thafreak: there's that pain again.
> <thafreak> I kid I kid
> <BiosElement> ;)
> <gilbert> so, there's a danger in making things too formal, but its also
> dangerous to have no clear leadership as well.  we need to find a balance.
> <BiosElement> Really though, votes = mailing list seems a good way to do it.
> -*- thafreak trying to get everyone to set up gpg :)
> <BiosElement> gilbert, I don't think we can get less formal then a council. :P
> <BiosElement> thafreak, No. Just no. >.>
> <Cheri703> considering the fact that while yes, a few people know each other,
> the fact that most people (as far as I know) don't know each other more than
> through the mailing list, it does make it hard to vote for people...
> <gilbert> BiosElement: agreed
> <BiosElement> thafreak, (I'm a gpg lover too, but no for this anyway. :P)
> <canthus13> thafreak: GPG is a pain with gmail. It works for a while... then
> it breaks.. then it works... then it breaks. and I hate evolution.
> <thafreak> gmail? you should be using mutt...or custom shell scripts and raw
> smtp!
> --> dmcglone1 (~david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) has joined
> #ubuntu-us-oh
> <gilbert> i think the key thing about a 3 person council is that if there is
> one black sheep, the other two can decide to take action.  but if there are
> two bad sheep, then there's trouble.
> <BiosElement> Back on topic folks
> <-- dmcglone (~david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) has quit (Read
> error: Connection reset by peer)
> <dmcglone1> sorry
> <BiosElement> gilbert, That's what a full loco vote can be for
> <spwelton> thafreak:  who uses smtp? I prefer morse code
> <jacob> gilbert: sounds about right
> <dmcglone1> what did I miss?
> <BiosElement> gilbert, We 'could' have the same problem if paultag went
> 'rogue' or something. If anything, a council lowers the chances.
> <thafreak> What if the council is doing good, and they all want to stay, and
> no one wants to challenge....do we need to bother with re-election?
> <gilbert> thafreak: i agree thats a problem.  we need to be able to bring in
> new blood.
> <Cheri703> I think having the terms staggered would be idea
> <Cheri703> *ideal
> <gilbert> Cheri703: but that may be getting a bit too formal
> <dmcglone1> like how Cheri703
> <thafreak> I guess...things can get stale...changing things up periodically
> might be good
> <Cheri703> well
> <thafreak> yeah, maybe staggered is better...
> <Cheri703> the first "round" could be for more than a year term
> <BiosElement> thafreak, We should have elections, but we could just reelect
> them
> <canthus13> Every 4 months, maybe?
> <thafreak> you gguys see how hard it is to pick just one person...if we had to
> pick 3 every year...that's the painful we were talking about
> <Cheri703> basically one starts their "year" in january, then is up for re-
> election in jan, the next from may to may, the next from sept to sept
> <Cheri703> something...I dunno
> <BiosElement> Lets not put limits on 'terms' or anything, if someone's good
> enough to be reelected, let em be.
> <dmcglone1> but thats too short for a person to prove themselves
> <Cheri703> but they could be left in if people preferred
> <BiosElement> Way too short, One year terms I support.
> <thafreak> But what if things get stale....
> <Cheri703> well, like I said, the first round could be from now til NEXT jan
> (not this coming)
> <dmcglone1> What could someone accomplish in 4 months
> <Cheri703> and I'm talking individuals
> <thafreak> like a loveless marriage
> <Cheri703> person 1 is jan to jan, person 2 is may to may
> <Cheri703> not all 3
> <BiosElement> dmcglone1, During OLF? Alot. ANy other time? Not much.
> <Cheri703> that way the 3 people move through
> <BiosElement> I think we're over complicating this by far
> <Cheri703> k
> <BiosElement> Seems kinda good but confusing
> <dmcglone1> BiosElement: I agree
> <thafreak> computer geeks ALWAYS over complicate things!
> <jacob> BiosElement: I agree, but it's good to discuss things
> -*- canthus13 doesn't think it's complicated enough.
> <canthus13> :)
> <gilch> i think staggering is a bad idea
> <thafreak> I like staggered, I don't want to vote for 3 people at once
> <canthus13> Staggering does make it hard to walk straight...
> <jacob> the main point of this meeting is to get people talking so we can
> figure this out more quickly -- which seems to be happening :)
> <BiosElement> jacob, True.
> <greyfox1> I agree that 4 months is too short. If nothing else, I  would be
> annoyed at all the hubub over elections and all that every 3-4 months
> <dmcglone1> thafreak: how about voting for 1 person and who that person brings
> along with them
> <greyfox1> look at how much activity there has been this time around. I would
> like to do that less oten
> <Cheri703> I think that at one time saying "hmm, we like you two, but not you,
> so you go, and we'll elect someone else" is harder than "oh, you're up for re-
> election as an individual, let's decide" then a few months along, do it for
> the next one
> <greyfox1> often*
> <dmcglone1> just like voting for prez and vice prez
> <canthus13> dmcglone1: ...runningmates? Bah. the last thing we need is
> politics.
> <gilch> no running mates
> <dmcglone1> canthus13: have you had a look around this room?
> <BiosElement> I'd rather just elect the entire team once a year. If say 15
> people apply, you can pick the top 3 and go with them. I think that's a great
> way to do it
> <dmcglone1> lol
> <jacob> I know this sounds long, but I'd be in favor of 2-ish-year terms. it
> seems to have worked out well for other general ubuntu teams.
> <Cheri703> harder to continue any projects in progress though BiosElement
> <gilch> BiosElement, I agree
> <dmcglone1> +1 BiosElement
> <canthus13> dmcglone1: Yeah. I'd rather not deal with that circus. besides...
> that sort of stuff leads to infighting.  not something we wanna deal with.
> <BiosElement> Cheri703, No it's not. You don't have to be on council to do
> projects.
> <Cheri703> well, as far as planning things I mean
> <BiosElement> Cheri703, I understand your point, but if only council members
> can do projects, it's a sad state of affairs. :)
> <Cheri703> mmk
> <dmcglone1> Now I totally agree with that BiosElement
> <thafreak> but we only get about 3 applying
> <BiosElement> thafreak, I'd apply if I knew the entire load wouldn't be on me
> alone
> <jacob> we can get into the details of projects later, but realistically it's
> not hard to get something started. post to the mailing list, ask around, get
> started
> <BiosElement> Problem earlier was I don't want to be the one letting
> 'everyone' down because I can't pay attention for a week or something >.>
> <dmcglone1> BiosElement: I'm in the same boat and somewhat the reason I
> dropped out of this run
> <Cheri703> once the team contact conversation hits a conclusion, I have a
> thought on reloco leads...
> <BiosElement> Cheri703, Aight, I'd love to hear it once we get this mess
> closed :P
> <Cheri703> kk
> <Cheri703> well, thought/question
> <gilbert> so the way i see it:  we start the council with a group of 3 ppl
> that are interested in doing that.  if we get more than 3, then we should have
> an election.  terms are eternal unless booted by other two members or
> referendum of group or loco council action.
> <jacob> gilbert: sounds like a good summary
> <gilbert> members should step down quickly once they realize that they've lost
> interest or don't have enough time
> <BiosElement> So we're not doing terms then?
> <gilbert> BiosElement: just my thoughts.  its debatable
> <BiosElement> gilbert, If members are inactive for 3 months, they'll be
> assumed 'quit'.
> <gilch> i would rather have terms
> <gilbert> BiosElement: how do you define inactive?
> <dmcglone1> lets just elect the guy that has no job and no social life ;-)
> <BiosElement> So would I.
> <jacob> hopefully this is obvious, but council potentials should read the
> Ubuntu Leadership Code of Conduct and agree/sign it
> <BiosElement> gilbert, Not active on IRC/mailing lists.
> <thafreak> they have to push a button every day
> <thafreak> if they don't push it for 3 months, then they're out
> <gilbert> thafreak: ha, like a guy in a missile silo
> <thafreak> ala 'the hatch'
> <jacob> the LCoC covers most of the common issues that are brought up
> <BiosElement> gilbert, Hell, let the loco decide inactive. If no one around
> can remember/seen them do anything, then they're inactive.
> <gilbert> BiosElement: we only want to involve the loco as a last resort
> <thafreak> +1 BiosElement
> <BiosElement> gilbert, True. But asking around isn't a bad way to figure out if
> someone's inactive.
> <gilbert> oops thought u meant loco council
> <gilch> i agree, if someone is inactive for an extended portion of time,
> someone else should take their place. but i would still like to see terms of
> 1yr or so
> <dmcglone1> BiosElement: what do we do with the ones that are active, but
> doing a crappy job?
> <gilbert> BiosElement: i think it would be up to the 2 active members to
> recongize it, give the guy a couple weeks to do something, and if not, start
> looking around for a third
> <jacob> BiosElement: should we draft some simple "charter" to define how the
> loco as a team can act on inactive council people?
> <thafreak> dmgwe revolt
> <BiosElement> dmcglone1, If they're doing a terrible job, council members
> could deal with it or, worse case, have the LoCo vote to remove them
> <gilch> even if once a year an email is sent out to see if anyone is
> interested
> <dmcglone1> I like the idea, but does anyone realize the hard feelings thats
> going to create?
> <gilbert> jacob: brilliant :)
> <BiosElement> The reason I want yearly elections is because it makes people
> feel 'safe' coming forward and debating it. I wouldn't be here if I hadn't
> 'tested' the waters at the Ubuntu Hour and discussed things with jacob and
> gilbert beforehand.
> <BiosElement> dmcglone1, Yes. But it can't be helped. It sucks but if they're
> doing a bad job, they need to go. >.<
> <thafreak> +1 BiosElement
> <jacob> BiosElement: even with that, we should have a defined document of
> rotations and terms or whatever so that we have it written down.
> <BiosElement> dmcglone1, Not everyone is cutout to be a leader.
> <BiosElement> jacob, Agreed, Not debating that.
> <gilbert> jacob: i could take a crack at drafting something
> <thafreak> Ok, so yearly elections, with the ability for "incumbants" to run
> unoposed?
> <BiosElement> gilbert, Want too? I'd be happy to review it.
> <jacob> gilbert: if you're up for it
> <BiosElement> thafreak, Agreed, but also reelected also. ^_^
> <gilbert> jacob: yeah i'm down
> <gilbert> jacob: i'll send a draft to the mailing list
> <dmcglone1> BiosElement:  thafreak I'm also in favor
> <BiosElement> gilbert, Send it to the mailing list to review it.
> <gilch> gilbert: sounds good
> <BiosElement> Gah, beat me too it
> <thafreak> Is there a min vote though? What if they're unopposed, and no one
> votes...
> <BiosElement> So lemme try to sum this all up...
> <gilch> thafreak: then they stay
> <gilbert> thafreak: i guess they win?
> <BiosElement> thafreak, Then clearly no one cares or thinks they're doing that
> bad a job haha
> <jacob> ^
> <thafreak> ok cool...
> <BiosElement> LoCO will be lead by a 3 person council, elected every year.
> Members can be reelected an infinite number of times. Members will be
> removed/replaced if inactive for more then 3 months. Basically agreed?
> <thafreak> well I need to go spend some time with the wife before she stops
> speaking to me...
> <BiosElement> Heh aight, later thafreak
> -*- dmcglone1 aye
> <gilch> agreed
> <jacob> BiosElement: sounds right. we can bang out the details on the mailing
> list or whatnot if there are additional concerns
> <BiosElement> jacob, Exactly.
> -*- Cheri703 votes for paultag
> <Cheri703> :)
> <BiosElement> So what about the current 'election' that's been kinda failing?
> <jacob> BiosElement: hmm. right.
> <gilbert> BiosElement: right, we need to put a stop to that first
> <gilbert> BiosElement: and that should probably come from paultag since he's
> the current lead
> <BiosElement> gilbert, Probably. It shouldn't be a big deal since no votes
> were cast or anything...
> <-- locyaw (~locyaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) has quit (Quit:
> Leaving)
> <gilch> BiosElement: i think with a more clear set of guidelines more people
> may be interested
> <jacob> +1 to all of the above
> <dmcglone1> One reason I dropped out was because I am under the impression
> that organizing things like OLF was part of the position. Doing something like
> that would probably be impossible for me because I would most likely have to
> use a phone.
> <BiosElement> dmcglone1, This is what the council is meant to help with
> <dmcglone1> yes, and this does give someone like me a chance, and I like that.
> <jacob> dmcglone1: it _could_ be involved, but historically we've had stuff
> like that led by people who simply volunteer
> <BiosElement> dmcglone1, Actually as for OLF, I was the co-organizer for the
> UbuCon this yearr with Jon. I'm not a LoCo Contact. :P
> <-- mathay (~andrew@unaffiliated/mathay) has quit (Remote host closed the
> connection)
> <gilbert> dmcglone1: this year someone volunteered to do the work, so the lead
> didn't have to do much except request cds and show up
> <dmcglone1> BiosElement: but was it supposed to be paultag's idea?
> <jacob> the *bare minimum* a contact needs to do is file team reports. and
> order CDs and be a contact w/ Canonical as needed. so it doesn't have to be a
> whole lot, but it usually means the team won't be extremely successful
> <dmcglone1> not idea but I meant "job"
> <BiosElement> dmcglone1, No, not really. It was approved by him though.
> <gilbert> ok, so did we cover all the topics that we needed to?
> <dmcglone1> Ok I see
> <dmcglone1> that was one of my fears
> <dmcglone1> somewhat gilbert
> <jacob> gilbert: I believe so
> <BiosElement> gilbert, I think so. Besides Cheri703 had a point earlier.
> <jacob> we've got an idea started, and that's the important part
> <gilch> good meeting
> <Cheri703> oh, I just had mainly a question about reloco leads
> <BiosElement> Yep, good meating.
> <jacob> Cheri703: shoot
> <Cheri703> do the reloco leads get together and discuss what they're working
> on in their areas? as far as advocacy and stuff?
> <Cheri703> and/or shouldn't they? to trade ideas?
> <BiosElement> Cheri703, Not that I know about, but they should.
> <Cheri703> or does the reloco lead just choose the ubuntu hour spot and go
> with it
> <BiosElement> Cheri703, That's something I'm wanting to work with the upcoming
> council to fix.
> <Cheri703> ARE they working on advocacy in any ways?
> <jacob> Cheri703: I've no idea what's already done, but I agree it should be
> <gilbert> Cheri703: we don't and we should probably have more regular reloco
> lead irc meetings
> <jacob> and team IRC meetings in general
> <Cheri703> are there ways for us general members to reach out to them?
> <gilbert> Cheri703: but we need a leader to organize those, which we're trying
> to figure out right now ;)
> <BiosElement> Cheri703, Best bet wuold be try to dig up their emails and
> contact them directly.
> <BiosElement> Again, anyone can do it, but it's pretty poorly organized.
> <jacob> Cheri703: overall it probably needs more discussion on how to get that
> set up, but I agree with your thoughts
> <Cheri703> k...my suggestion/thought: at least once a month the reloco leads
> should get together and discuss ideas, and/or each reloco should have a
> meeting to take input on where they'd like the group to go (and yes, there's
> ubuntu hours, but not everyone comes to those)
> <gilbert> Cheri703: what do you think needs to be done to make us more
> accessible?
> <Cheri703> us = reloco leads?
> <gilbert> yes
> <gilbert> Cheri703: i agree with that.  a monthly irc meeting would probably
> suffice since the state is so large
> <BiosElement> Cheri703, How about bi-weekly meetings on IRC for ReLoCo
> Leads/General Meetings?
> <Cheri703> well, I honestly have NO idea what role the reloco leads serve (and
> that may be due to a lack of looking into it), I don't know if any of the
> relocos do anything beyond having ubuhours
> <Cheri703> I think that'd be good personally
> <gilbert> Cheri703: i do regular ubuntu hours, and i've set up a bug jam in
> columbus.  if you have ideas on what i could be doing better, let me know
> <dmcglone1> gilbert: I didn't know about this bug jam
> <Cheri703> I'm not saying you're NOT doing things, I'm just saying I don't
> know what IS being done, and I think that having people talk about it would be
> helpful...
> <gilbert> Cheri703: you may want to check out the burning circle podcast as
> well (although there hasn't been a whole lot of reloco conntribution to that)
> <dmcglone1> please don't tell me the meets are in an area like OSU campus :-(
> <BiosElement> gilbert, Problem is I think columbus is the only ReLoCO that
> really does much of anything. At least that I've heard.
> <gilbert> http://ohio.ubuntu-us.org/burningcircle
> <jacob> dmcglone1: they are
> <Cheri703> I'm in an area without a reloco (though trying to change that), and
> so a. getting ideas, and b. if the groups were willing to help some of us in
> the sparser areas (the "missionary" trips I'd suggested), that'd help
> <gilch> where are you at Cheri703
> <jacob> BiosElement: it's possible other relocos do quite a lot -- the issue
> is communication
> <gilbert> dmcglone1: didn't you come to one at panera?
> <Cheri703> yeah, I looked at that a bit gilbert, haven't listened to all of
> them
> <Cheri703> mansfield
> <BiosElement> jacob, That's kinda what I meant. :P
> <dmcglone1> gilbert: no, I came to a meet, but not a bug jam
> <Cheri703> Even just a monthly "reloco happenings" sent to the mailing list
> would be helpful
> <Cheri703> either a "what was done" or a "what's coming up"
> <Cheri703> and I know there's the calendar, but...still
> <gilbert> Cheri703: i'm willing to head out there (and possibly round ppl up)
> if you're willing to put something together and get the word out.  reloco road
> trip :)
> <jacob> I need to head out in a few minutes, but +1 to what's been brought up
> so far
> <dmcglone1> I agree Cheri703
> <gilbert> dmcglone1: the bug jam was at osu also
> <Cheri703> :) yeah gilbert, I've been looking into posters and flyers and stuff
> <BiosElement> I'd be happy to go out to diff loco areas for meetings and such,
> but my issue would be transport. >.< If we can get a few people to go though,
> I think it'd work well.
> <Cheri703> trying to get a few people around here to have a mini-reloco
> started, then it's not just me :) Unit193 is from mansfield, so we were
> discussing it
> <-- gilch (~michael@75.39.28.112) has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
> <Cheri703> I think that'd be awesome to have the "big" relocos help out those
> of us in the boonies
> <gilbert> BiosElement: i could drive
> <greyfox1> Cheri703, I've got a poster/flyer for Ubuntu hour if you'd like it.
> <BiosElement> gilbert, Sounds like a plan ^_^
> <greyfox1> You could edit the date/time etc.
> <Cheri703> sure, I'll take it! I'm conglomerating from some stuff on
> spreadubuntu to put up at the local community college and the library
> <Cheri703> might steal some of the loco branding as well
> <greyfox1> Nice
> <greyfox1> I'll just send it to the mailing list. Other people might find it
> useful as well
> <Cheri703> good call
> <dmcglone1> Yes, I was thinking I may be able to make use of it myself
> -*- jacob is heading out. good meeting, later all
> <dmcglone1> later jacob
> <Cheri703> night jacob
> <BiosElement> Thanks for the help jacob, See ya
> <tnseditor> see you later jacob
> <-- woody_ (~woody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) has left #ubuntu-us-oh
> ("Ex-Chat")
> <dmcglone1> I do have to say that we need to make becoming "more involved" a
> little bit easier
> <BiosElement> dmcglone1, Again, I circle back to the point of the council. :P
> We need to show people that 'anyone' can help out. ^_^
> <gilbert> i'm out too.  thanks for the constructive ideas all.
> <dmcglone1> well I'm speaking about new comers etc. people that don't
> understand the ropes
> <Cheri703> BiosElement: I do think that the "help out" is fairly open
> ended...there are gobs of lists of general "ubuntu" things to help with, but
> if someone is interested in really being involved in the loco, there's not
> much as far as "here's something we would like to implement, anyone who wants
> to help, come jump in"
> <Cheri703> or whatever
> <-- dsteele (~dsteele@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) has left #ubuntu-
> us-oh
> <BiosElement> Cheri703, So you want a newbie checklist of tasks?
> <dmcglone1> exactly Cheri703
> <Cheri703> maybe? something like that
> <Cheri703> WAYS to help out, not just "anyone can help!"
> <dmcglone1> thats point blank
> <Cheri703> some people would feel more comfortable starting at a local level
> than just being told, "oh, go help with bug triaging" that's OVERWHELMING for
> some people
> <dmcglone1> yes
> <Cheri703> I get that it's needed, and I get that it's something many people
> can do, but...yeah
> <BiosElement> Cheri703, That's kinda what I meant. :P I get what you
> mean..kinda. But you gotta realize it's difficult to do because 'we' don't know
> what needs done always. >.>
> <Cheri703> well, yeah
> <gilbert> Cheri703: in terms of local, just get out there, find ppl, find ppl
> that need help with something, and help them
> <gilbert> Cheri703: have an installfest
> <BiosElement> I'll be back in a few. ^_^
> <gilbert> Cheri703: talk to freegeek
> <Cheri703> yeah...but when you are (relatively) new to a town, "finding people"
> isn't so easy
> <dmcglone1> true BiosElement, but we can always get them started into
> something
> <Cheri703> I would LOVE to get a freegeek thing going up here
> <Cheri703> (also a bike co-op)
> <Cheri703> this town needs that sort of thing
> <dmcglone1> Cheri703: finding Linux users in general isn't easy either
> <Cheri703> I'm working on it...
> <Unit1931> The friend I know said Thurs would work better
> <Cheri703> like I said, I'm going to put up some flyers at the college and
> library
> <Cheri703> ah, ok Unit1931, sounds good :)
> <Cheri703> that family or someone else?
> <tnseditor>  I'm going to watch some shows.  Talk to you all later
> <Unit1931> Family
> <Cheri703> nice
> <dmcglone1> later tnseditor
> <Unit1931> Mostly the dad and son
> <-- tnseditor (~John@unaffiliated/tnseditor) has left #ubuntu-us-oh
> <Cheri703> kk, cool
> <Cheri703> any particular thursday? or just in general?
> <Unit1931> general
> <Cheri703> kk
> <Cheri703> awesome :)
> <Unit1931> If they can come... I will also talk to people at the place where I
> volunteer...
> <Cheri703> kk, sounds good
> <Cheri703> hey, even if they can't come for a while, it's still good that the
> word is getting out that there are ubuntu-folk up here :)
> <Cheri703> I've been re-flashing my android phone tonight. I'm annoyed that the
> new version of the rom I had took out a feature that I use OFTEN...now looking
> for another, or will revert
> <Unit1931> Cheri703: do you have a set date or thinking of a date for the
> meet?
> <Cheri703> uhm, really any thursday...I'm kind of planning on just going over
> there and hanging out on thursday evenings in general just since I will be
> (hopefully) putting up some info somewhere. I'm thinking either 6pm or 7pm,
> and we could say 11/11 for the first "official" one? that gives some advance
> notice
> <paultag_> crap, someone email me logs. I love you all much, be back in a few
>
>
>
> --
> All programmers are playwrights, and all computers are lousy actors.
>
> #define sizeof(x) rand()
> :wq
>



-- 
All programmers are playwrights, and all computers are lousy actors.

#define sizeof(x) rand()
:wq