On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Chuck Frain <chuckfr...@pobox.com> wrote: > And if I have no one willing to sign the LCoC?
Then we have an issue. What if someone does not want to get approved? > > This does and describes nothing beyond the CoC other than putting it > into different words geared towards the 'leaders' of the group from my > quick read of the document. > That's the point. > In my team I'm technically the leader but I assign tasks to people on > occasion to oversee this project or that. I don't want to have to deal > with 'By the way Bob, before I can ask you to make that flyer you will > have to sign the LCoC because I'm giving you responsibility here.' It's once in your life. > > I know and understand my responsibilities as a contact and leader of the > team. But if I cannot get other members to sign this, when they may not > have even signed the CoC, I'm not going to be able to delegate anything > to anyone. And until I have time to really read and understand it, I may True, but only for delegating day-to-day roles. Setting up a booth would not have you sign a LCoC > not be willing to sign it as in the quick read I gave to it I'm > concerned about a few points. What happens then? Same with not signing the CoC. > > You mention in your mail that it would be required of anyone who holds > any materials for the group and fingering financial repurcussions. How > does the LCoC prevent someone from disappearing? There are no legal > responsibilities there. Nothing to sue over. 'Jane ran off with our CDs > after signing the LCoC. She's a bad girl for breaking the LCoC > conditions.' I'm more worried about getting my CDs for the group back > than some CoC/LCoC violation. And if someone wants to run off with > material they are breaking trust with the locals who they have > befriended that could care less at that point about some random LCoC > violation that 'harms the greater Ubuntu community'. Likely the greater > community will only hear a blog post or two about the theft and go on > with their lives after saying 'Oh that's too bad $LOCO_TEAM'. Yes, but at least we have a document that we can say they breached. Right now it is literally "Oh that's too bad". > > I don't see the point in signing yet another CoC type document when the > original one has already largely covered the topics of the new one. > > On Fri, 23 Apr 2010, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: > >> Hey LoCo Contacts, >> >> At our last Council meeting[0] we had discussed having contacts sign >> the LCoC, or Leadership Code of Conduct[1]. >> >> This idea was met with very light opposition based solely on the fact >> that contacts may not be the "leader" of the team, as was pointed out >> ( and exemplified ) by the DistrictOfColumbiaTeam. >> >> As a result, the natural move is to redefine who must sign the LCoC. >> >> Following is the current base criteria that the the LoCo Council has >> come up with as a guideline for who will be required to sign the LCoC. >> >> >> * LoCo Contacts >> * One who oversees people >> * One who oversees material, or resources >> >> Here is the Council's rational for each - >> >> >> * LoCo Contacts >> They are the ones that we would get in touch with if we have >> questions. They are the only ones who can request CDs for Shippit, and >> are in control on Launchpad. If they go missing, everyone outside the >> LoCo has a harder time getting in touch with someone who can either >> route the question, or answer it with authority. >> >> * One who oversees people >> This is what we were driving at from day 0 with the LCoC. Anyone who >> oversees could mean someone as general as a "president", someone >> designated for IRC administration, or even a local member who ensures >> that events get followed through. A lot of teams object to defining >> leader in terms of Contact because they have a system where the >> "Administrator" is not the POC. >> >> * One who oversees material, or resources >> If there is a member who holds all the materials ( posters, signs, CDs >> ), they have a duty and obligation to the team to not just disappear. >> Local Communities are ( more often then not ) run and funded >> exclusively from the members, and a blow such as this would be a large >> financial burden on the team. >> >> >> [0]: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LoCoCouncil/Agenda/20100420 >> [1]: http://www.ubuntu.com/community/leadership-conduct >> >> >> Feedback, as always, is welcome. >> >> Humbly, >> Paul Tagliamonte, on behalf of the LoCo Council >> >> -- >> #define sizeof(x) rand() >> :wq >> >> -- >> loco-contacts mailing list >> loco-contacts@lists.ubuntu.com >> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/loco-contacts > > -- > Chuck Frain > GPG Key: B2420431 > http://www.chuckfrain.net > > -- > 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
