© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
73416ba
(Get the code!)
> 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://
Yup. That's it.
> 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
LoCo Council *
> 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?
Our ReLoCos have shared events, and we have state-wide events. Since we are so close we have shared membership. As such, we went for membership together, don't think of it as a city winning over a state.
> 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
Nosir. I think it's fitting, and a change of terms could be pretty bad.
> simple matter to re-badge the list of teams with their appropriate
> monikers: CoCo, ReCo, LoCo and sort out the governance over time and
I don't like this. I think teams should be able to call them what they want. LoCo is really a funny poke ( loco = crazy in Spanish ). There is no reason to ruin a good joke
> 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
A state level leader is able to better figure out where the lines should be drawn. A global rule would not fit well. There is no reason us-ri needs city level locos ( it's smaller then most counties ).
I think the current is system is fine, and all we need is a review of best practices. As such, I say we mark this invalid, and we ask that you help us work forward. I don't think posting on a bug is the best way to get this stuff done.
> though, possibly related to the prioritization bug that I've filed
> separately, https:/
> possibly related to your scaling comment.
Not sure. I'll take a look at it soon