Glynn Foster wrote:
> Okay, I have to confess that I *really* hate the idea of Facilitators.
> Creating a formal role around this is, I believe, forcing people to do
> something that isn't a natural fit for how most things work. The
> people interested in doing things will pick it up and communicate
> appropriately with whatever body has a natural fit - it's an assumed
> role, rather than a formal role. Over time, this natural group of
> people changes ("You do what you can, when you can"), and a more
> formal role seems like an administrative burden, along with single
> point of failure.
>
I'd be happy to remove Facilitator as a role in the new organization. In
the draft structure I mailed on Friday there is a Leader in every Group,
which was Alan's suggestion and it makes sense. But we don't need a
Leader /and/ a Facilitator. The communications mechanism can be between
the Leader of a Group and the OGB (or anyone else in the Group, for that
matter, but the Leader has ultimate responsibility). It's clear the
Facilitator role has not worked well across the community. Interest in
the role within the community -- and also on all three OGBs -- has been
extremely low. We should just cut it in the reorg. Personally, I'm keen
to reduce governance to the absolute bare minimum.
Jim
--
http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris/
