On 02/04/13 19:57, Elizabeth Krumbach wrote: > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Randall Ross <rand...@executiv.es> wrote: >> Thanks for clarifying, but the reverse is also true. Rejection of city >> teams potentially handicaps cities and larg(er) towns. The reason these >> highly localized teams exist is that they are serving a need that is not >> met by the current "official" nation-state structure. So, we can ignore >> the citiess and pretend they don't exist, or we can embrace and >> encourage them. > So the teams I've been involved with (Pennsylvania and California) > have regional segments within the state team, and with Pennsylvania we > went as far as having regional "leads" - so Philadelphia had a lead, > Harrisburg, etc. This worked out very well for us, we had the > cohesiveness of all being in the same state to share mailing list, > approval and LTP resources so we could all see what others were doing, > but each leader of those regions also had autonomy to plan their own > things. > > Do you think this could work for teams you're working with? If not, > what needs are not being met that we can discuss? > We have a bug open about this as well if we had more people out there to help I'm sure we could help fix this issue, https://bugs.launchpad.net/loco-team-portal/+bug/884430
Regards 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
