On 8 March 2010 16:19, Andrew Gaydon <gande...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Matthew, > > On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Matthew Rossi <m...@pcpodcast.org> wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> On 8 March 2010 15:40, AndrewG <gande...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Nice Summary Matthew. >>> >>> >>> On the State representative model, (of which you know that I am in >>> favour of) >>> >>> This is the way that I see it. >>> >>> >>> On Mar 8, 2:01 pm, Matthew Rossi <m...@pcpodcast.org> wrote: >>> > Hello, >>> > >>> > I agree with what Scott is saying. It would be a good idea to be >>> flagging >>> > those contributing to this thread as those with a vested interest in >>> the >>> > LoCo, and that we need to work out overall what our LoCo is trying to >>> > achieve. >>> > >>> > Going back to the talk about the Governance structure, we have about >>> three >>> > different systems going around. >>> > >>> > We have the present system, which isn't working too well. I don't need >>> to >>> > repeat why because it has already been covered. >>> > >>> > We have my system, which would struggle to organise events and liaise >>> with >>> > local LUGs in states that do not have representation on the committee. >>> > There are also issues regarding election processes and the idea of >>> newer >>> > members attaining committee spots being out of reach that need to be >>> looked >>> > at. >>> > >>> > We have the state rep system. It works well if there are active reps >>> from >>> > each state within the LoCo. Elections would never work for that model >>> as >>> > the numbers of people in each state are too small, so how do we select >>> reps? >>> > And how do we encourage newer members to get involved as a state rep? >>> If >>> > the process isn't rigid and doesn't allow for regular change, then >>> > becomes too hard for newer members. There is also a chance that we >>> can't >>> > get state reps for various states, which means that liaising with LUGs >>> and >>> > organising events there would become too difficult. >>> >>> 1. Each state would elect their own representative for the ubuntu-au >>> council. (on an anniversary date) >>> (if there is no person to represent a state, the seat on the >>> ubuntu-au council would be left open to be filled at a later date) >>> >>> What do you mean about "elections would never work" as the numbers >>> of people in each state are too small" ?? >>> >> >> The number of active people within each state that would be interested in >> voting may be too small. I'm wrong in saying that it would never work >> because if the number of candidates and the number of voters is at the right >> number which allows for a majority vote to work. >> > > If there is 'one' person nominating for the position, then there would be > no need for an election, this person would be elected un-opposed. If > no-body nominates then the state will be un-represented. 'A majority' vote > is not necessarily needed. > > If a State is un-represented and somebody wants to be 'Elected' then a > 'Special meeting' can be called and the person elected. > > This is not really a problem as I see it. > > My concern was more with there being say 4 candidates between 8 voters, though I suppose if necessary we can split it up as per point 2 of your email. Otherwise all is good.
> > >> If you look at the https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AustralianTeam/Members, >>> every state has members. >>> >>> 2. As each state may have more than one group, ie Brisbane, Cairns, >>> Gold Coast each can nominate a person to become a state rep. >>> An election can then be held if there is more than one >>> candidate. >>> >>> >> That could work. >> >> >>> 3. Maybe a 'general' committee member could be used to represent 'un- >>> represented' states ??? >>> >>> >> That wouldn't work well because then that committee would be formed with >> people that don't live in that state, which would make it difficult to do >> the liaising with local LUGs etc. If necessary we could group the smaller >> state's together. Like we can have one position for SA and NT. >> > > Yes this could work. > > >> >> >>> >>> Andrew G. >>> >>> > >>> > So, keeping that in mind, let me pose this question, which way do we >>> go? We >>> > need to have a rigid and transparent structure of governance because it >>> is >>> > obvious that without one we as a LoCo are going to struggle to get >>> things >>> > done. >>> > -- >>> > Regards, >>> > Matthew Rossi >>> > m...@pcpodcast.org >>> > Tel: +1 253 987 6413 >>> > Mob: +61 488 122 990 >>> > >>> > -- >>> > ubuntu-au mailing list >>> > ubuntu...@lists.ubuntu.comhttps:// >>> lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-au >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Regards, >> Matthew Rossi >> m...@pcpodcast.org >> Tel: +1 253 987 6413 >> Mob: +61 488 122 990 >> > > > Keep the thoughts coming along, as in brainstorming we can get something > achieved. > > Cheers, > > Andrew. > >From some brainstorming going on in #ubuntu-au-chat, the general consensus seems to be that we have the Team Contact and Area contacts (whether it be for a single state or single parts of a state). I also suggested that we include a Junior Contact (preferably under the age of 18, but older people can be nominated if an under-18 can't be found) to involve younger members more, and an independent chairperson that runs the meetings and oversees the election of team/area contacts (that position can be given to someone who can't necessarily perform the roles of Team/Area Contact but is still willing to help out here or there). While this is by no means the definite solution, I thought it would be a good idea to put this onto the mailing list for the wider community to comment on. -- Regards, Matthew Rossi m...@pcpodcast.org Tel: +1 253 987 6413 Mob: +61 488 122 990
-- ubuntu-au mailing list ubuntu-au@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-au
