James Carlson wrote: > I think John's point is that it's just a role -- a part that some > person can play at some point in time, with no assumption that there > aren't others doing the same. "When playing the Facilitator role, you > can ..." > > Instead of trying to define it in complicated terms like that, I think > it's simpler to say that the person who is motivated to do the work > ought to have the job. In other words, the "leaders" of a community > don't _necessarily_ care about Joe Bob's new project, but Joe Bob > obviously does. Rather than making the "leaders" (or a Facilitator) > responsible for gathering vote results, and writing up the message to > have the new project created, I think that 'role' ought to fall on Joe > Bob's broad shoulders. He's motivated to get it done. (And if he's > not, then the project doesn't get created, and it solves the problem.) >
I agree that the person who wants the project should do the work. I continually run into this since I've set up a whole boat load of projects. I always walk people through the process myself since the process is painfully manual at this point, so it's difficult to point a new guy into all that. However, as we automate some of these processes I'll certainly not do that. :) > The only other purpose (I can see) for a Facilitator is to help answer > OGB questions on behalf of a Community Group, but I really don't see > any reason we need such thing on a permanent basis. > Agree. Jim -- http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris/
