> You cannot expect to publish a document of that size less than 24 hours > before a meeting and expect to have it adopted.
> The document was not included as a discussion topic in the Agenda - and > before you ask, the Agenda is a wiki page that can be modified by any > member of the general public. > > Furthermore, you had the opportunity to raise the issue at the end of > the meeting when, as chair of the meeting, I asked if there were any > other issues to be raised. > > I was under the impression that the topic was going to be addressed. Several times during the meeting, you made mention that the document was not to be discussed until the end. When we reached the topic you stressed that you felt that this was inappropriate and needed to be pushed off. I absolutely respect your role and value as moderator for the meetings and I do not have any qualms with that. I did not expect my document to be accepted, but I do appreciate constructive criticism about what is right with it while helping me contour it to what you believe is more in line with what you have come to expect from this project. > > As to the specifics of the document, I'll respond to one single point > and leave it to others to add their own comment. > > Your proposal calls for the following roles: > > # Executive Director > # Communications Director > # The Repository Director > # Local Communities Director > # LoCo Envoy > # Philosophy Director > # Canonical Envoy > # Art and Media Director > # Development Director > # The Media Director > > There are other roles buried in the text. > > Just in case you were actually seriously proposing this list of roles, > there were 17 people who actively spoke in the meeting, three of which > were bots. I suspect that you will find out very quickly that you will > have a team full of directors an no-one left to lead. > > > Actually, I think if you do the math, then what I am proposing makes perfect sense. Based on your numbers, there are 17 people who were vocal during the meeting. These are the people who felt that what they had to say was something that could help shape the direction of the project. The point that is missing from the facts above is that there were 129 users in the room at the conclusion of the meeting! 129 users (some bots) that cared to be there to listen to what we had to say at that particular moment in time. There are many people on this list like Simon Schneebeli that don't want to listen to all our noise and instead want to focus on tasks and what they can do to accomplish something for the project. I don't believe what you meant to say was that only us willing to be chatterboxes are the ones willing to do anything. Even if all 17 of the talkers wanted to "lead" a project, that leaves over 6 additional people per project to contribute. Assuming that all eight of the positions you listed above were filled with project leads and had projects to do, that would leave a smidge over 16 users per project...sounds to me like a team. Yes, I placed a bunch of roles on that list...so let's pare it down a bit. I bet we can look at it a bit differently if we have a more positive attitude about the idea: # Executive Director # Communications Director # The Repository Director # Local Communities Director # LoCo Envoy # Philosophy Director # Canonical Envoy # Art and Media Director # Development Director # The Media Director I bet whoever takes Executive Direction should probably have a concise idea of the philosophy behind the project. So let's combine Philosophy Director with ED. One down. Communications is meant to govern things like a task tracker and the like, which could also be a role of oversight for the person who controls the subversion repository of documentation. Two more roles combined. The Canonical Envoy, LoCo Envoy, and Development Envoy (mistype in the proposal) are all members of other core groups that are here for advisory roles, not active directorships. Adios to three more on the list. Let's have a look at that list again: # Executive Director # Technologies Director (was Comm/Repo) # Local Communities Director # Art Director # Media Director Advisors # LoCo Envoy # Canonical Envoy # Development Envoy So now, with just a few minutes of thinking this through, I was able to condence it to Cory's magive number of 3-5. We would probably want a leader for the Spread Ubuntu campaign in there too for good measure, but that's neither here nor there. I'm not calling for a rigid hierarchy. The core-marketers would have to follow the same philosophical mandates as the rest of the project. Anything and everything these people do should be approved through a consensus just like everything else. But now you have established points of contact to help build our group and that focus intently on what is important to their areas. I think there is a solid base for leadership that has already presented itself. What I am asking for is for you all to realize that with a little bit of infrastructure, you can begin rapid development of your own projects and see clear results sooner than later. Thanks, John Vilsack
-- ubuntu-marketing mailing list ubuntu-marketing@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-marketing
