+1 (Workforces might not be a good term. I can see specialized lists for addressing particular subject areas that have their own specialized traffic, but it is careful to avoid suggesting organizational division when what we are doing is filtering traffic. There are other ways to do that, but separate lists are very effective, because they don't depend on complex subject-line rituals.)
-----Original Message----- From: IngridvdM [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 03:47 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Teams and Leads (was: Proposed short term goals) [ ... ] I would like to try the structures and ways Apache has. That everybody has a voice at Apache and that the goal is to seek consensus by exchanging arguments is a very democratic aspect. That in the end those do that choose to participate more is the meritocratic aspect. I think this is highly fair. I am not so convinced that the structures we had on old OOo have been good. Obviously there has been to much room for distrust and hidden discussions, so repeatedly individuals or whole groups felt excluded on multiple sides. I am really in favor of going without anyone being named leader or manager or any name that could create the impression that this person has more rights than the others. Maybe we can choose 'contact' as a neutral description in case something turns out to be needed? Or is there even a more neutral word? Christian Grobmeier has mentioned "workforces". That sounds interesting. Is there more about that in the documentation somewhere? Ingrid
