Comment 22 for bug 392986

Paul, Thank you for noticing and for chiming in. Your case is an excellent example of what I am calling a ReCo (Regional Community), with apparent LoCo's in Akron, Cincinnati, Cleveland (ReCo capital), Columbus, Dayton, Lima, and Toledo (which you call ReLoCo's according to http://ohio.ubuntu-us.org/reloco)

As far as I know Ohio is a corner-case, though I'd love to see/hear the other ReCo's chime in with which teams they consider subordinate.

Let's assume though (as a thought experiment) that Ohio is not a corner-case, and that every sizable ReCo in the world has (truly) LoCo's already in place and that this represents a template of sorts. This would mean that the burden of LoCo approval does indeed rest with the ReCo in question and not with the Community Council, that has conceivably already delegated this responsibility. (i.e. in Ohio's case, Cleveland has approved the LoCo's?). This would also mean that a CoCo (Country Community) would be the top-level entity and would approve (or periodically evaluate) state/provincial teams such as Ohio. I don't think this is the case. Should it be the case?

Thought experiments and org structures aside though, can we at least come to consensus that with our current statistics and reality the term "LoCo" is inaccurate and potentially misleading? It would be a fairly simple matter to re-badge the list of teams with their appropriate monikers: CoCo, ReCo, LoCo and sort out the governance over time and with due process, if that is a priority. If the burden of approval is still too high at that future time, then perhaps the approval team needs to expand, restructure, or delegate... That's likely a different bug though, possibly related to the prioritization bug that I've filed separately, https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-community/+bug/497051, and possibly related to your scaling comment.