Jim Grisanzio wrote:
> I agree that the person who wants the project should do the work.
So, what happens if/when nobody wants to do the work? Or when
the work is "the OGB needs someone to do 'foo' for each group"?
If "everyone" can do it, it means that ultimately there is "nobody"
responsible for ensuring that it really gets done. My concern
here is mostly on "where does the buck stop?".
Being a top level group in our community is a bidirectional thing.
Theey get a large dose of autonomy, but in exchange they need to
provide certain things to the community at large:
A membership policy
A resource allocation policy
A point of contact for anyone trying to interact with the group,
for example, because of membership and resource requests
A regular (quarterly?) "state of the group" report
...
The constitution defines a facilitator role. I don't mind if we rename it
to leader, but the role is still there - as is the list of tasks that need
to be addressed by the person/people in that role.
A person who is motivated to do the tasks should be given the role; having
the role enables both the ability to perform those tasks and the responsibility
to do them.
-John
