On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Nathan Haines <nhai...@ubuntu.com> wrote: > On Thu, 2010-08-26 at 13:13 -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: >> I'd think this issue would hit close to home -- California had some >> rough times regarding not focusing on the whole state a while back. > > I wouldn't categorize the California Team issues as being trouble with > not focusing on the whole state, and those issues would not be addressed > by what is being proposed here.
All the conversations I had with the team-mates really made me think so > >> Does anyone disagree with coming to the conclusion that we need to >> make sure a LoCo focuses on a whole state and not just one city in a >> state? -- I thought that was in the definition of a LoCo, but I could >> just be a liberal judge ;) > > I don't think anyone disagrees with that but I still think documentation > is the way to go here. Certainly we don't need a policy guideline for > that. Well, I'd like to see it implemented as a standard. I think you're seeing this too black-and-white. This is not some boolean switch... Let's get this worked out as a policy. Let's take Nathan's objections into consideration when we draft this ( don't make this black-and-white / do-or-die policy for LoCos, rather a standard, and the goal of an ideal team. ) > > -- > Nathan Haines <nhai...@ubuntu.com> > Ubuntu California Local Community Team > > > -- > loco-contacts mailing list > loco-contacts@lists.ubuntu.com > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/loco-contacts > -Paul -- #define sizeof(x) rand() :wq -- loco-contacts mailing list loco-contacts@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/loco-contacts
