Hi all, I generally agree with what DW said (though the characterization of the SoCal/NoCal mentality may be a bit simplified...). I have always been of the opinion that the issues and personal problems in this group derive from a lack of a well-defined and fair structure/by-laws. A couple months back, I documented what I thought the root problem was and created a proposed structure to address them. I did not submit it to the group in deference for the ongoing process between Neal, Grant and Jono; though I thought this process mostly hopelessly mired in fixing ill-effects instead of the root cause of trouble.
However, I find Jono's email from yesterday to begin to address the root cause (the lack of well-defined structure) of our problems. I think his proposed leadership model would ensure equality in the group (everyone gets to vote) and define a clear path towards leadership for those wishing to bring change to the group. The model, coupled with a some simple by-laws defining membership, the role of the leader and how decisions are made locally and statewide would in my opinion go a long way towards solving the structural and personal problems in the group. Here is the link to my document mentioned above for the record: http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AVvuU9dbI-YnZGhtOWh6cHZfNDNmNzRoaDNkdw&hl=en - I hope the forward illustrates why the problems in the group derive from the lack of structure. I am by no means attached to the particular details of the proposal in this document. It is simply an example. I think supplementing Jono's proposed leadership structure with some sort of by-laws would certainly be sufficient - without the need for council member from each area. If it is not clear, this email and the google-document represent my opinions only and not those of other NoCal members. -Jack On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 10:24 AM, David Wondelry ~DarkwingDuck~ < ubu...@darkwingduck.org> wrote: > On 03/09/2010 07:58 AM, David Wondelry ~DarkwingDuck~ wrote: > > On 03/09/2010 12:44 AM, Jono Bacon wrote: > >> Hi All, > >> > >> I just want to clarify my original question as there was a little > >> confusion reported to me earlier: I am asking whether you feel that the > >> leadership process is required at all. If you feel the team would > >> benefit from having that process in place, vote with +1, if you feel > >> that the team is running just fine without it, vote -1. > >> > >> Sorry for any confusion. Thanks, all! > >> > >> Jono > >> > > > > -1 > > > > For my reasons feel free to email me. > > > > DW > > > > There have been a lot of questions about my vote. I figured that it > would be more productive to reply with my reasons here. > > The issues in the group stem from a leadership style that Neal (Flannel) > has. The issues have brought up a lot of controversy with the northern > group. Grant (Grantbow) is one of the people that have brought the > issues to light. It's a philosophy issue between how those in NorCal > think and deal with problems vice those in SoCal. > > SoCal thinking has a way of saying "Problems will take care of > themselves." The NorCal thinking is "Deal with the problem ASAP, fix it > and move on." This is where you can break down the issue. My problem is > that when/if a change of power takes place the issue of philosophy will > not change. If someone from NorCal takes over then the issue still > remains as those from SoCal will stir that we are spending too much time > focused on the problems and not enough on what a LoCo should do. > > This is why I feel this course of action is like a very small band-aid > to a larger problem. What should be done is a set of bylaws on how to > deal with issues, leadership and how to conduct business. Changing > leaders will not solve this issue. > > DW > > > -- > Ubuntu-us-ca mailing list > Ubuntu-us-ca@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-us-ca >
-- Ubuntu-us-ca mailing list Ubuntu-us-ca@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-us-ca