Some countries (like ours, Belgium) are only as big as some of the cities mentioned here.
I see no reason why they should not form their own group. And what their interaction is (or lack thereof) with the country team, should be up to those teams entirely. Just like there is no obligation why a small team like Belgium should or should not interact with the neighbouring countries. On the contrary, I feel that any group that feels they work better than the whole country group, should be able to be founded. Let's say that there are some people in Seattle and Vancouver that want to join forces and form a group on their own, because they get along well, have the numbers, and are geographically easier within reach of each other than their respective country groups. Why should that be a problem? Why should they interact with country groups that might have strong representation near their respective capitals thousands of miles away? Up to them really, and none of our business. Whatever works. Rather have a few solid groups scattered around the map, than one big scattered group within that same map. A lot more will be done within groups that work well together and that are formed naturally. No need to regulate, govern, or restrict this. Just my 2c. Regards, Jan. On 4 April 2013 08:31, Benjamin Kerensa <bkere...@ubuntu.com> wrote: > > On Apr 3, 2013 9:00 AM, "Martin Owens" <docto...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > Realistically resources like DVD's, Banners and Booth Cloths are not > gifts... I think right now they are treated like a perk when in reality the > DVD's get given out to the public. > > The banner and booth cloths are advocacy tools... We should not set a bar > higher than any other open source project to get these kind of > resources.... Gnome, Mozilla, Fedora... Nobody limits their volunteers with > bureaucracy like we currently do. > > Sure we don't want to send resources where they are wasted but blog > aggregation for a loco team? Let's find out a way to break down the > barriers and spread FOSS. > > > > > > If we reject them because they don't fit our criteria > > Also the criteria is not always clear and equally tested across the > board.. For some the bar is lowered and for some its raised. > > > > > 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 > > +1 > > > > > Make - "Default to permissive and restrict only when needed in specific > > cases." > > +1 > > > > > > 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 > > -- Have you tried Ubuntu Linux yet? Check out http://www.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/why-use-ubuntu and find out why it is a better option than trying to upgrade your hardware to accomodate a newer version of your current system.
-- loco-contacts mailing list loco-contacts@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/loco-contacts
