A LoCo team, as it's currently defined, is simultaneously two largely-separate things at the same time:
1) A set of online resources: mailing list, IRC channel, forum, web page, wiki page, etc., and 2) A group of people in a city who do things. Or, if you're very luck, separate groups of people in separate cities who talk to one another via (1). (1) encompasses the entire geographical/linguistic region. Here in Canada, it's particularly important as, as we've noted, people in rural areas don't have the opportunity to create (2). Speaking of Canada, even people in the Vancouver LoCo come on the online Ubuntu Canada channels sometimes. I mean, I've *gone* to Toronto to run events there, even though it's not my town. Despite being only an hour away from me, that's hard and unsustainable. I do stuff in my city. I do think (2) needs to be better-recognized and supported by the LoCo council. If they want to only formally deal with the large geographical area held together by (1), that's fine. They have finite resources. And I don't see why city teams can't work together to help the LoCo council out. But it's hard to deny that people in cities meeting up IRL and doing cool Ubuntu things is important to the growth of the community and should be supported. Darcy. On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Pablo Rubianes <pablorubianes...@ubuntu.com > wrote: > As I see all this I think this: > > as I see it is better to have groups per city as having "Real" meetings is > much better than IRC/mail and even Hangout as (not everyone in the world > have propper internet access) but having this huge amount of new teams will > mean that we will need much more resources for the teams (ubuntu packs for > example) so I propose to have a clear guides for this or we let every > city/region to have a LoCo or is one per country and every country do > whatever they think is best inside of it. > Both ideas has pros and cons and I think we have a LoCo Council so the > LoCo council must decide this, the ones with this responsability should > decide, that´s with they have resposability. we don't have to argue or > fight just expose yout ideas in a "Human" way. > > Isn't been Human what Ubuntu is all about? > > Pablo > > > > > 2013/4/3 Martin Owens <docto...@gmail.com> > >> On Tue, 2013-04-02 at 22:41 -0700, Jono Bacon wrote: >> > and I worry at times that our requirements around approval or >> > meeting a certain criteria can stand in the way of teams being active. >> >> It's higher than it needs to be for certain resources. >> >> > If we reject them because they don't fit our criteria >> >> Criteria are broad at the moment. This gives teams less structure around >> what the should do to support Ubuntu. But various ideas on what to do >> have become the de-jur standard and semi-integrated into the tests. >> >> > we should let them post their blog posts to loco.ubuntu.com >> >> Make - "Default to permissive and restrict only when needed in specific >> cases." >> >> > before anything brews any further. >> >> broils, you're the meat guy. I think there might be a few brewers on the >> list ;-) >> >> Martin, >> >> >> -- >> loco-contacts mailing list >> loco-contacts@lists.ubuntu.com >> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/loco-contacts >> > > > -- > loco-contacts mailing list > loco-contacts@lists.ubuntu.com > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/loco-contacts > >
-- loco-contacts mailing list loco-contacts@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/loco-contacts
