Peter Tribble wrote: > I actually think we may need both. > > Every part of the organization needs a point of contact, which is what > the facilitator role really is.
In theory, perhaps, but not in practice. Many CGs don't even have Facilitators and all three OGBs have ignored the issue for the most part. That's why I want to cut the role. I don't think it's necessary. The /function/ may stay, certainly, but that's a decision for each Leader in each group. And that's what I'm trying to get down to -- what do we /actually/ need to start this process. > In many cases, the leader of a collective may > be the right person, but it isn't obvious that the leader is always going to > be both managerial and secretarial - in which case a separate facilitator > on file may be useful. > But useful for what? We'll already have the Leader role to ping so we can communicate to all the groups if we have to, which should be extremely rare, by the way. We don't even do that now, actually. How each Group is run from an operations perspective (managerial, secretarial, etc) shouldn't be an OGB concern. As a practical matter, various groups will have leaders, participants, committers or whatever. How they manage that is their business. The only OGB involvement in groups comes with Membership issues. > And in my view of the electorate, voting rights don't expire, but you can > become inactive. Perhaps Emeritus would be a nicer term than Inactive? > I just don't see the distinction or the practicality here. It could be there, mind you. I just don't see it. :) Jim -- http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris/
