Rich Johnson wrote: > On Monday 03 July 2006 06:02, Matthew Revell wrote: > >> Howdy Rich, >> >> On 30/06/06, Rich Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Like I stated in a previous message is that for Canonical contact I >>> believe we should have a POC for them. >>> >> I can see the benefit to this: >> >> * the guys at Canonical are busy, so one contact point could save them >> from having to filter too much >> * if we agree a stance or whatever on the ML or in meetings, the POC >> would present those and Canonical would know what we'd agreed >> * inevitably some marketing stuff may be commercially sensitive - >> Canonical may appreciate someone they know will respect embargoes etc. >> >> On the other hand: >> >> * you say we should have a POC for Canonical - do you mean only for >> Canonical? If so, why only Canonical? >> * it could give the impression of a hierarchy that doesn't exist >> * may discourage people's creativity/entrepreneurial spirit, if they >> feel they have to go through an ordained channel >> * POC may become unavailable, so we'd need to a back-up plan. >> >> This is just off the top of my 'ead but it'd be good to hear other >> people's views on why, if at all, we should have one POC for >> Canonical-related activity. >> >> >>> I can also see that it could make it appear that there is a heirarchy >>> within the team that doesn't really exist. >>> >> That could be the biggest problem, so we'd need to put in place other >> measures to ensure we remain as open and "flat" as possible - e.g. >> make sure new people are always replied to, have wiki pages that >> reflect our open nature, etc. It could also be that, after discussion, >> we decide the benefits of a POC outweigh the perceived hierarchy >> problem. >> >> -- >> Matthew Revell >> www.understated.co.uk >> > Matthew, > > Good points Matthew, as it seems the chose POC is currently away. Matthew I > do > feel everyone on this list, and everyone on this team has proving that they > have the ability to communicate well. With that in mind I think any and all > of us should probably communicate with Canonical. However, there will be > those who do not communicate as well. I am looking at the situation with an > open mind, and I think whatever the best possible solution is, we should go > with it. Another thing is that, yes, we do not have any type of hierarchy, > which is very popular among the Ubuntu communities, however, I think that w/o > some sort of Chain-of-Command or hierarchy, some people may not possess the > drive to dive into a job w/o some sort of guidance. OK, that was my 2 cents, > however bad it was I apologize in advance. Thanks everyone!!! > Alrighty... I do not think the team needs a chain-of-command structure, but there are administrative issues that need to be handled. I can't really concentrate ATM on making a concise and exhaustive enumeration of these, but I can list a few things I've been doing that do have such a nature, and should be the duty of whoever fulfills the role of team contact/leader/coordinator in the future. I will be doing these things for as long as I'm available for doing them, with or without a title/role/whatever as is needed and required of me: - Contacting Canonical (silbs), representing the team elsewhere - Scheduling, chairing and summarising meetings - Finding people for special tasks (wiki management, IRC operators, LP team admins, graphics designers etc.) and asking them to do them on behalf of the team. - Advertising the team elsewhere (forums, etc.), perhaps not needed anymore.
OTOH, I believe project leaders could form a sort of council to vote on structural decisions, such as new projects, changes in the means of communication. Or we could have Ubuntu Members do that - I'm not sure how many there are on the team ATM... but that doesn't really make any sense - that would make core people not have a vote and some who are only signed up as members have one. Awaiting your thoughts, Jenda -- ubuntu-marketing mailing list ubuntu-marketing@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-marketing
