Jim Grisanzio writes: > John Plocher wrote: n> > 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
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.) 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. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson at sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
