On 07/02/13 07:22, Jared Norris wrote: > > My personal preference would be "sponsored". When I thought about it what > Canonical's main reason for evaluating teams regularly to give them a label > was, I came to the conclusion it was to ensure the most appropriate > distribution of the limited resources available. Active teams are the > better resourced as they're the ones currently putting in the effort, > therefore they are sponsored. > > I could be making an incorrect assumption about Canonical's motives for > requesting the bi-annual review, in which case feel free to let me know. > > I'm not sure why you thought it was Canonical's motives for the reapproval, it's not it came from the community discussions that it was a good idea as a health check to see how loco teams were doing, it's also part of the duties/role of the loco council to review this.
cheers Laura -- Laura Czajkowski https://wiki.ubuntu.com/czajkowski LoCo Council Member Community Council Member -- loco-contacts mailing list loco-contacts@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/loco-contacts
