On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Nathan Haines <nhai...@ubuntu.com> wrote: > On Thu, 2010-08-26 at 07:42 -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: >> Can anyone think of reasons that creating a standard that dictates >> that LoCo teams must foster growth at the lowest granularity possible >> for their region? > > Could you please clarify your request? That's not a complete sentence > and doesn't explain what reasons you are asking us to think of.
Can anyone think of reasons against creating this standard * Sorry, sent this early in the day. This level of granularity is really up to the loco -- for most US states it would be per-city level. If it ( the state ) is small ( such as rhode island ) there might be no need for a group in more then one city ( they're close enough where it's not out of anyone's way ). It would just be saying "Look, don't ignore the whole state and focus on one city". > > If you are asking for reasons that creating such a standard would not be > a good idea, I would say it makes me nervous that below you seem to be > looking to create a stick to smack LoCos with: No well-functioning team should have anything to worry about. I'd think this issue would hit close to home -- California had some rough times regarding not focusing on the whole state a while back. This would be used to say "Hey, look, help these guys and *cooperate* with them -- neglecting whole cities is not kosher". This would not *mandate* being in every city -- if there's no base, there's no base, but if there are people willing to do the work, a LoCo should do *everything* in their power to help. This is so that we can make sure that teams are not focusing on one city and not anywhere else, since, after all, a LoCo is state-wide. > >> Any issues with a LoCo blocking city level >> "startups" is frowned upon ( and soon, if we can finish up this >> thread, a nice and tidy violation of standards ). > > Since no one seems to have agreed on an "action plan" yet, but you're > already pushing to create a standard that will be actively enforced > against LoCos, I'm concerned that we might end up with a policy that > doesn't necessarily make sense for all LoCos. Does anyone disagree with coming to the conclusion that we need to make sure a LoCo focuses on a whole state and not just one city in a state? -- I thought that was in the definition of a LoCo, but I could just be a liberal judge ;) > > It's already important for LoCos to foster and encourage local advocacy > and participation. I'd prefer to continue developing good documentation > that helps make this easier rather than creating requirements that would > probably be unnecessary if documentation were there. If there are no requirements then we have no way of saying "Do this or you're not staying true to the philosophy of a LoCo" -- they could argue that's what a LoCo does, and no one would be able to say anything different. > > -- > Nathan Haines <nhai...@ubuntu.com> > Ubuntu California Local Community Team > > > -- > loco-contacts mailing list > loco-contacts@lists.ubuntu.com > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/loco-contacts > -- #define sizeof(x) rand() :wq -- loco-contacts mailing list loco-contacts@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/loco-contacts
