On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 09:32:29 +1000
andrew wrote:
> I have created a poll on the appointment process for team positions.
>
> http://www.doodle.com/pn7hyxe77wwr8bka
>
>
> HOW TO VOTE CARD
>
> Meritocracy - Keep the current process.
>
> Democracy - Everybody has a say in who is appointed to the
Ryan,
There are two issues here.
1. How people are appointed. (Democratic or Meritocracy)
2. The actual positions up for appointment. (Structure)
The models presented, combine the above which is why I refuse to vote in
the poll because I would be voting for positions and how they are
appointe
> Sounds like we in the Brisbane team need to get cracking...
:-)
Another nice bonus when it comes to holding an event ahead of linux.conf.au:
there are usually quite a few Canonical folk from overseas speaking or just
attending. Though not crucial (we have awesome local contributors of course)
On 10/06/10 11:45, Jeff Waugh wrote:
For those that are considering it without previous unconference/conference
experience, do something smaller first. Try an BarCamp first of comparable
length.
Please don't be scared off by this but plan it fully.
Concur. I ran GNOME.conf.au as a
On 9 June 2010 17:36, Jared Norris wrote:
> On 9 June 2010 17:27, Karl Bowden wrote:
>> Hi Harry,
>>
>> Would you care to share some more details on the 'Next "G"' device you
>> are trying to get working?
>>
>> I have a few Telstra Next G Wireless Broadband devices I use at work.
>> They are all
> For those that are considering it without previous unconference/conference
> experience, do something smaller first. Try an BarCamp first of comparable
> length.
>
> Please don't be scared off by this but plan it fully.
Concur. I ran GNOME.conf.au as a linux.conf.au miniconf for a few years.
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>
>> Personally, I think that we need a Ubuntu Confrence in Australia. This
>> confrence should be conducted on a yearly/bi-yearly basis (perhaps inpart
>> online/through a web hookup), we talk all things Ubuntu and we elect our
>> leaders the
Andrew,
None of us really want a meritocracy, but we want the same structure that
option 1a gives us. It was named the wrong way apparently, which is why you
probably think we are all going with a meritocracy, but we are not.
I thought everyone already agreed on a model of election. But it seems
> Personally, I think that we need a Ubuntu Confrence in Australia. This
> confrence should be conducted on a yearly/bi-yearly basis (perhaps inpart
> online/through a web hookup), we talk all things Ubuntu and we elect our
> leaders there accepting online votes from anyone not there. There could
Colin,
Yes an 'Elected' board/council could appoint people to roles based on
'Merit'.
Andrew G.
On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 09:28 +1000, colin mcdermott wrote:
> >> There are not many reasons why we cannot have a 'Team' elected to
> positions based on merit every 12 months. When people nominate for
>
I have created a poll on the appointment process for team positions.
http://www.doodle.com/pn7hyxe77wwr8bka
HOW TO VOTE CARD
Meritocracy - Keep the current process.
Democracy - Everybody has a say in who is appointed to the leadership
team.
Andrew G.
--
ubuntu-au mailing list
ubuntu-au@l
On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 08:27 +0100, "ha...@ipunix.com"
wrote:
> Another device that is still a problem is the scanner function in
> Multi-Function Printers. I would say that when both items are working
> without any hassles we will see a strong move towards Linux by users of
> laptops.
>
So
>> There are not many reasons why we cannot have a 'Team' elected to
positions based on merit every 12 months. When people nominate for
positions they can put up their credentials, why they want the position
and what they can do for the Ubuntu-au Loco.
Isn't this pretty much standard! I mean Ubun
There was no discussion on 'positions' in that meeting.
You are asking me to vote on a model that has 'positions'.
We are really voting on the appointment process.
I have created a poll here http://www.doodle.com/pn7hyxe77wwr8bka
On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 05:15 -0700, bwright wrote:
> We spent
We spent most of the meeting before last on the restructuring so why
would we repeat it. I will be voting :-)
On Jun 9, 11:24 am, Jared Norris wrote:
> On 9 June 2010 09:36, andrew wrote:
>
>
>
> > Bravo Ryan for bringing this forward,
>
> > I will not be voting for any of the structures for the
On 9 June 2010 17:27, Karl Bowden wrote:
> Hi Harry,
>
> Would you care to share some more details on the 'Next "G"' device you
> are trying to get working?
>
> I have a few Telstra Next G Wireless Broadband devices I use at work.
> They are all ZTE MF636 devices. We also use a few tethered mobile
Hi Harry,
Would you care to share some more details on the 'Next "G"' device you
are trying to get working?
I have a few Telstra Next G Wireless Broadband devices I use at work.
They are all ZTE MF636 devices. We also use a few tethered mobile all
through Network Manager too.
The devices I use ar
17 matches
Mail list logo
