> Are you interested in volunteering? :-) I'm happy to share the load, > the load is shared mostly with Oliver at the moment, but he's really > busy with GUADEC right now, and Parth is focused on his GSOC > activities.
Not sure if I'd want to take the lot on! But I'd certainly be happy to load-share, if this would help? Magdalen Berns <[email protected]> wrote: > > Twitter management seems like quite a lot for one person. Why not share > the > > load of managing it among a few people? > > Twitter alone isn't too much work. I've managed the channel in the > past, and it was pretty easy. > It's easy until people inevitably get busy with other things or have crisis which they have to prioritise. The good thing about having a few people on deck means the load is balanced and there is a contingency for the unexpected. Reasons to have one owner per channel: > > * you get a consistent voice across messages > Having a sensible publishing policy can do the same thing for consistency, just as we have for code commits. > * the channel owner can schedule activity, to ensure regular posting, > as well as coherence of the channel as a whole To be fair, I think we've established that this is not how things have been happening. * it avoids errors, since one person has an overview of what has been > posted (so you don't get multiple people posting the same message, for > example) > If a manager doesn't know how to check something has not already been published before posting then they probably are in the wrong role, to be honest. * because someone is maintaining the channel, they are able to reply > to questions and discussion > What happens when people don't know who that person is or can't get hold of them? Magdalen
_______________________________________________ engagement-list mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/engagement-list
