Melissa, On Mar 8, 11:44 am, Melissa Draper <meli...@meldraweb.com> wrote: > On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 11:25 +1100, Andrew Swinn wrote: > > Just a quick 2 cents worth on the whole committee thing. > > > I would agree that having an overall president plus a representive from > > each state would be the way to go. > > Linux Australia has gone through this discussion regularly over the > years. The conclusion has always been that it's not feasible. Why? > > Because you have to find, for each state (and territory), someone > actually capable and willing to do the role. In a country like > Australia, that means finding someone from NSW, Vic, QLD, WA, SA, Tas, > ACT. >
With a process of "ASKING" Why can't we find people willing and able perform such roles. > > I would also suggest that these state positions could be dual roles with > > the other needs, ie as well as representing their state/territory > > interest they could spearhead marketing, or website maintenance etc. The > > state/territory reps could and should be able to handle organising other > > facets of what needs to be taken care of as well as being that contact > > point for their area. > > The chances of you getting token folk from each state and then hoping > they can do roles such as this really is not plausible. That's kind of > how we end up with cabinet ministers in Canberra who have a > palin-to-foreign-policy outlook on their portfolios. Why not try !! ASK !!! If people do not perform, strip them of their responsibility. > > > So firstly I think we should organise the first thing, getting a > > president/leader/whatever put in place plus state reps, then letting > > those elected/appointed people work on organising the rest. > > > One of the big issues with community groups is getting caught up in the > > politics of it all. Those age old requirements for > > president/treasurer/minutes/commitees out the wazoo all scare new people > > away. People are extroadinarily time limited today so keeping it short > > and simple is what should be focused on. > > Once you have a committee you /are/ caught up in the politics. A > committee is political no matter which way you spin it and offices do > have requirements. > Politics is involved everywhere, but with proper governance and process, committees do work. > > > Having state/territory reps that are also involved with local LUGS would > > also be valuable. > > > Andrew > > > On 8/03/2010 10:56 AM, AndrewG wrote: > > > Matt& Benjamin, > > > > IMHO. > > > > I would propose that the committee be a representative one, being > > > 'one' State leader from each state. > > > > Why, because most implementation of Goals of Ubuntu-au will be enacted > > > on at a local level. > > > Ie. Exhibition stalls, Install fests, cd distribution etc. > > > A 'State' leader would also be a 'Local contact' for interested > > > people wanting to get involved. > > > > Sub-committees could also be formed, to deal with 'Marketing > > > resources', 'Website maintenance' etc. on a national level. > > > > Also don't forget the various 'LUGS' around the country, they have > > > many resources that could also be utilised. > > > > Yes Ben, there would be a process needed to 'Vet' candidates for > > > positions. > > > > Cheers, > > > Andrew G. > > -- > Melissa Draper > > w:http://meldraweb.com&http://geekosophical.net > p: +61 4 0472 2736 > > -- > ubuntu-au mailing list > ubuntu...@lists.ubuntu.comhttps://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-au -- ubuntu-au mailing list ubuntu-au@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-au
