Post by Oliveman on Oct 18, 2007 1:42:58 GMT -5
All of us here are founding members, there's no doubt about that. What is in contention, and this has come up numerous times, is to what extent should there be people in charge of specific areas of the site, i.e., staff? My question to you is: what should be the balance between staff and members that we develop moving forward?
See the difference lies in those people who want to build the structure for the site vs those who want to use what is constructed. There's lots of gray area, however, because I certainly made the group for everyone's use.
The thing is that many people have different time constraints, and some decisions are made more quickly with small groups talking together live, rather than posting that happens on an irregular basis.
So, what's the balance? Right now, I don't know. Frankly I think anyone who is concerned with the structure of the group, and who wants the group to ultimately succeed as a whole, should be involved as staff.
But there doesn't need to be sepparation, really, either. It's all about the tasks and duties each person has with regard to the board, in my view, and if those aren't a little clearer than they are now, nothing will get done. Also, not everything concerns everybody. I hold that people should do what they're interested in most on the site. For instance, I'm leading this thing, so I need to make sure I'm doing all that I can to get the group to succeed, and continue to expand in the right direction, along with a bunch of other stuff that goes along with running a group. And as you can see, even my job description isn't all that specific.
So... where do we go from here? How should we create staff, and how should members be involved? In what ways can we involve them? We have polling, and the ability to post questions to each other.
While this is a discussion of governance, please don't go into the merits or pitfalls of Communism or any other political philosophy... I'll only beg once.
See the difference lies in those people who want to build the structure for the site vs those who want to use what is constructed. There's lots of gray area, however, because I certainly made the group for everyone's use.
The thing is that many people have different time constraints, and some decisions are made more quickly with small groups talking together live, rather than posting that happens on an irregular basis.
So, what's the balance? Right now, I don't know. Frankly I think anyone who is concerned with the structure of the group, and who wants the group to ultimately succeed as a whole, should be involved as staff.
But there doesn't need to be sepparation, really, either. It's all about the tasks and duties each person has with regard to the board, in my view, and if those aren't a little clearer than they are now, nothing will get done. Also, not everything concerns everybody. I hold that people should do what they're interested in most on the site. For instance, I'm leading this thing, so I need to make sure I'm doing all that I can to get the group to succeed, and continue to expand in the right direction, along with a bunch of other stuff that goes along with running a group. And as you can see, even my job description isn't all that specific.
So... where do we go from here? How should we create staff, and how should members be involved? In what ways can we involve them? We have polling, and the ability to post questions to each other.
While this is a discussion of governance, please don't go into the merits or pitfalls of Communism or any other political philosophy... I'll only beg once.