John Plocher wrote: > Glynn Foster wrote: > >> Okay, I have to confess that I *really* hate the idea of Facilitators. >> 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 >> > > > I see this as a formal role in as much as "if you are in this role, you > can do these things". Each top level group would have a set of one or more > people in that role, much the same way we have mailing list moderators... > > For something like ON, I would expect KellyN to be on that list, as well > as JBeck, MarkN and a few others. > > As Bonnie suggested, there would also need to be a way to send mail to > all the people who have chosen to wear the Facilitator hat; I expect > that the number of Facilitators will be much smaller than the number > of Contributers... > > I think what Glynn is getting at (which I agree with) is that we may be thinking in too structured and too narrow a way with the Facilitator role (even though we really don't implement it strongly). In other words, let those who want to interact at that level naturally grab it. Facilitator is a term most people don't like and it's not designed as a leadership role. If we remove it as a role, we are not removing the necessity of groups talking to the OGB. We are only letting them decide who talks to the OGB. Also, with a Leader role in every group, the OGB will always have a clear set of people across the entire community to directly talk to if need be. That's not true with Facilitators currently.
Jim -- http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris/
