On 13/07/2008, at 9:47 PM, Jim Grisanzio wrote:
> 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.
I assume you're actually suggesting that we have a group of leadership
roles right across the community. That certainly makes sense - there
are people who can commit code, people who organize meetings or talk
at events, and people edit websites. I'm not necessary convinced there
needs to be a forced relationship between those people and the OGB,
but in the description of roles, I think it makes better (more
natural) sense than other suggested roles.
Glynn
