Re: [Discuss] Fwd: What makes a team member?

[Jonathan Roberts]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Stephen Michel 
wrote:

> While we're going meta...
>
> One thing that stands out to me is that this whole discussion is
> predicated upon the assumption that these 3 classes must exist. I haven't
> spent enough time reading the bylaws, etc, to determine if this assumption
> is valid; I just wanted to make it explicit.
>
> I will continue to ponder.
>

I think they should exist, but with as little pomp as possible. The point
as I see it is to provide a mechanism for specifying the role of each board
member; for assigning each board member to a unique constituency with
unique needs. So I think your earlier question is the central question
here.

>
> ___
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
> https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Fwd: What makes a team member?

[Stephen Michel]

While we're going meta...

One thing that stands out to me is that this whole discussion is 
predicated upon the assumption that these 3 classes must exist. I 
haven't spent enough time reading the bylaws, etc, to determine if this 
assumption is valid; I just wanted to make it explicit.


I will continue to ponder.
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Fwd: What makes a team member?

[Jonathan Roberts]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Bryan Richter  wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:04:33AM -0700, Jonathan Roberts wrote:
> >
> >Paying a member fee is an interesting thought. I guess I hadn't
> >considered that. I have been mostly thinking that it makes sense
> >to give full time staff, payed or not, special representation on
> >the board. In other words, I'm not sure I want a possibility for
> >someone to be able to just "buy in" to that class, whatever we
> >call it.
>
> I see your point. So the question is, who is being represented? What
> is a "full-time staff"?
>
> I agree with Aaron: trying to create metrics or algorithms for
> deciding such a thing sounds dicey to me.
>
> Would it help to ask what sort of needs they might have that would
> make them distinct? That is, is "full-time staff" truly a valid
> category, and if so, can we define them by their unique interests?
>

I think these questions are helpful, and are along the lines I've been
thinking. Issues related to getting payed for work are a pretty easy to
define set of unique interests.

>
> ___
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
> https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Fwd: What makes a team member?

[Bryan Richter]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:04:33AM -0700, Jonathan Roberts wrote:
> 
>Paying a member fee is an interesting thought. I guess I hadn't
>considered that. I have been mostly thinking that it makes sense
>to give full time staff, payed or not, special representation on
>the board. In other words, I'm not sure I want a possibility for
>someone to be able to just "buy in" to that class, whatever we
>call it.

I see your point. So the question is, who is being represented? What
is a "full-time staff"?

I agree with Aaron: trying to create metrics or algorithms for
deciding such a thing sounds dicey to me.

Would it help to ask what sort of needs they might have that would
make them distinct? That is, is "full-time staff" truly a valid
category, and if so, can we define them by their unique interests?


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Fwd: What makes a team member?

[Jonathan Roberts]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Aaron Wolf  wrote:

>
>
> On 10/19/2015 11:05 AM, Jonathan Roberts wrote:
> > Aaron, what are your thoughts about that?
> >
>
> From here on, try to remember reply in context at the *bottom* of an
> email / below the thing in context. It's much easier to follow that way.
>
> Anyway, I think that it's okay to say that employees don't *have* to be
> co-op members, and to be they must be patrons just like everyone else.
> Or we could require it, but still have them be patrons.
>

Sorry about that...I agree with this...

>
> > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Jonathan Roberts
> > mailto:robertsthebr...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Brian,
> >
> > Your first comment makes a lot of sense. I think that option is
> > definitely off the table.
> >
> > Paying a member fee is an interesting thought. I guess I hadn't
> > considered that. I have been mostly thinking that it makes sense to
> > give full time staff, payed or not, special representation on the
> > board. In other words, I'm not sure I want a possibility for someone
> > to be able to just "buy in" to that class, whatever we call it.
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Bryan Richter  > > wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 10:09:22PM -0700, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> > >
> > > The question is: How do we determine who gets to count enough
> as a team
> > > member of Snowdrift and thus get to vote in that member class
> in the
> > > co-op? The same question also must be answered for counting as
> a member
> > > of other project teams too.
> >
> > I assume this idea has floated around before, but to be
> > explicit, what
> > of the notion of paying a nominal fee to become a member? That's
> the
> > route taken by all the co-ops I've been a part of (Davis Food
> Coop,
> > REI, etc.)
> >
> > ___
> > Discuss mailing list
> > Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop  Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop>
> > https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Discuss mailing list
> > Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
> > https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >
>
> --
> Aaron Wolf Snowdrift.coop 
> ___
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
> https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Fwd: What makes a team member?

[Aaron Wolf]

On 10/19/2015 11:05 AM, Jonathan Roberts wrote:
> Aaron, what are your thoughts about that?
> 

From here on, try to remember reply in context at the *bottom* of an
email / below the thing in context. It's much easier to follow that way.

Anyway, I think that it's okay to say that employees don't *have* to be
co-op members, and to be they must be patrons just like everyone else.
Or we could require it, but still have them be patrons.

> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Jonathan Roberts
> mailto:robertsthebr...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> Brian,
> 
> Your first comment makes a lot of sense. I think that option is
> definitely off the table.
> 
> Paying a member fee is an interesting thought. I guess I hadn't
> considered that. I have been mostly thinking that it makes sense to
> give full time staff, payed or not, special representation on the
> board. In other words, I'm not sure I want a possibility for someone
> to be able to just "buy in" to that class, whatever we call it.
> 
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Bryan Richter  > wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 10:09:22PM -0700, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> >
> > The question is: How do we determine who gets to count enough as a 
> team
> > member of Snowdrift and thus get to vote in that member class in the
> > co-op? The same question also must be answered for counting as a 
> member
> > of other project teams too.
> 
> I assume this idea has floated around before, but to be
> explicit, what
> of the notion of paying a nominal fee to become a member? That's the
> route taken by all the co-ops I've been a part of (Davis Food Coop,
> REI, etc.)
> 
> ___
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop 
> https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
> https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 

-- 
Aaron Wolf Snowdrift.coop 
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Fwd: What makes a team member?

[Stephen Michel]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Jonathan Roberts 
 wrote:

Brian,

Your first comment makes a lot of sense. I think that option is 
definitely off the table.


Paying a member fee is an interesting thought. I guess I hadn't 
considered that. I have been mostly thinking that it makes sense to 
give full time staff, payed or not, special representation on the 
board. In other words, I'm not sure I want a possibility for someone 
to be able to just "buy in" to that class, whatever we call it.


I feel that Brian's wording is important here: "paying a *nominal* fee.

It does a couple things for us:

1. Requires that snowdrift class members reveal their identity (at 
least, with the state of money today). -> prevents abuse
2. Requires some level of commitment. -> avoids the people who would 
just through whatever hoops because "why not?"

3. Provides VERY clear criteria. This is probably the biggest gain.

We could also do things like offer gratis 'promotion' to snowdrift 
class for paid employees to avoid any weirdness of "we're paying you to 
pay us to have special representation."


~S
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Fwd: What makes a team member?

[Jonathan Roberts]

Aaron, what are your thoughts about that?

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Jonathan Roberts <
robertsthebr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Brian,
>
> Your first comment makes a lot of sense. I think that option is definitely
> off the table.
>
> Paying a member fee is an interesting thought. I guess I hadn't considered
> that. I have been mostly thinking that it makes sense to give full time
> staff, payed or not, special representation on the board. In other words,
> I'm not sure I want a possibility for someone to be able to just "buy in"
> to that class, whatever we call it.
>
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Bryan Richter  wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 10:09:22PM -0700, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> >
>> > The question is: How do we determine who gets to count enough as a team
>> > member of Snowdrift and thus get to vote in that member class in the
>> > co-op? The same question also must be answered for counting as a member
>> > of other project teams too.
>>
>> I assume this idea has floated around before, but to be explicit, what
>> of the notion of paying a nominal fee to become a member? That's the
>> route taken by all the co-ops I've been a part of (Davis Food Coop,
>> REI, etc.)
>>
>> ___
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
>> https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
>
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Fwd: What makes a team member?

[Jonathan Roberts]

Brian,

Your first comment makes a lot of sense. I think that option is definitely
off the table.

Paying a member fee is an interesting thought. I guess I hadn't considered
that. I have been mostly thinking that it makes sense to give full time
staff, payed or not, special representation on the board. In other words,
I'm not sure I want a possibility for someone to be able to just "buy in"
to that class, whatever we call it.

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Bryan Richter  wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 10:09:22PM -0700, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> >
> > The question is: How do we determine who gets to count enough as a team
> > member of Snowdrift and thus get to vote in that member class in the
> > co-op? The same question also must be answered for counting as a member
> > of other project teams too.
>
> I assume this idea has floated around before, but to be explicit, what
> of the notion of paying a nominal fee to become a member? That's the
> route taken by all the co-ops I've been a part of (Davis Food Coop,
> REI, etc.)
>
> ___
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
> https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Fwd: What makes a team member?

[Bryan Richter]

On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 10:09:22PM -0700, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> 
> The question is: How do we determine who gets to count enough as a team
> member of Snowdrift and thus get to vote in that member class in the
> co-op? The same question also must be answered for counting as a member
> of other project teams too.

I assume this idea has floated around before, but to be explicit, what
of the notion of paying a nominal fee to become a member? That's the
route taken by all the co-ops I've been a part of (Davis Food Coop,
REI, etc.)


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Fwd: What makes a team member?

[Jonathan Roberts]

Jason,

Aaron clarified it well. To clarify further, my thoughts for now are
specifically about the specific "snowdrift" class; the team leaders of the
snowdrift project. I think the "project" class could be defined quite a bit
more loosely and left up to the discernment of the individual projects. We
could put a clause in the by laws that has a protocol for addressing
complaints of unfair "stacking" of teams, but that also seems like an
unlikely scenario to me, for the reason you've pointed out. At the very
least, if we don't have a clause and we encounter a problem, the board can
move to amend the bylaws.

-Jon

On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 10:09 PM, Aaron Wolf  wrote:

>
>
> On 10/17/2015 09:54 PM, Jason Harrer wrote:
> > Hi, Jon -
> >
> > I'm assuming you're referring to the Team Member designation for users
> > affiliated with projects on Snowdrift.coop.  If you're referring to
> > something else, then this response may not be valid for your question,
> > and my apologies in advance for the misunderstanding.
> >
>
> Thanks for the thoughts, Jason. I think this perspective *will* help Jon
> make sense of other things. But the topic is indeed different. This is
> about who gets to count for which class of co-op member as
> Snowdrift.coop proposes a *multistakeholder* co-op model. So, there are
> three classes: Snowdrift, Projects, General. The first is for the
> employees/team of Snowdrift specifically (like working on the site
> itself), the second is those who work on other projects that we help
> fund, and the third is people who are only patrons.
>
> The question is: How do we determine who gets to count enough as a team
> member of Snowdrift and thus get to vote in that member class in the
> co-op? The same question also must be answered for counting as a member
> of other project teams too.
>
>
> > My first thought on your ask is that there seems to be an assumption
> > that all projects that will be signing up for Snowdrift.coop will be
> > coops themselves.
>
> We do not assume that projects must themselves run as co-ops, we just
> encourage them to.
>
> >
> > Many of the Open Source software projects that are out there are a
> > one-man or few-man show.  There's not enough folks there to justify a
> > full on command hierarchy like there would be at a corporation.
> > Especially at the beginning, many of the folks will be purely
> > volunteer.  Until these projects get up and running, there's a chance
> > that not even the one-man contributors may be getting paid to work on
> > the project (or, potentially, paid enough, as some only get paid a small
> > amount each month, potentially less than minimum wage in whatever
> > state/province/county/country/etc. they hail from, which would then lead
> > to the question of...  at what threshold of payment would one be
> > considered an employee vs. a volunteer?).  If you're talking about some
> > of the other project types that Snowdrift.coop is available for (music,
> > art, writing, etc.), it's even less likely that they'll fit a coop or
> > command-hierarchy mold.
>
> Regardless of internally working as a co-op, each of these projects gets
> to have their participants be members of the Snowdrift co-op. So your
> question remains: how do we determine someone counting as the project
> class? In other words, does a musician who lists their music on the site
> and fails to get much support get the same membership status and vote as
> someone who gets their entire income funded through their project on
> Snowdrift.coop?
>
> It's not about their internal operations, it's about the position in
> decision-making for Snowdrift.coop policies and decisions.
>
> >
> > That being said, a team member to me is someone working on the project.
> > It makes no discernment about whether they're paid or volunteer, nor
> > does "team member" on its own really provide any hierarchy, nor do I
> > believe such a distinction is really necessary.  They are all working on
> > the project, and from the public's perspective, that's really all they
> > need to know about any individual person.  Yes, we can have a spot
> > somewhere on a project page that identifies how many paid employees a
> > project has, as I can see the benefit of that from a "Where is the money
> > I'm donating going to?" perspective, but calling out individuals as
> > employees or volunteers in the list is really unnecessary.
>
> Right. But for the issue in question here, we need to determine
> *legally* sound definitions of who gets to count as a project team
> member given that they have legal rights as a co-op member (voting for
> Board elections etc., with a distinct voting class being project teams
> vs general patrons). So the challenge is that we *need* some way that
> isn't totally unspecified as to who gets to decide or what criteria is
> used for whether someone counts as part of project teams.
>
> I definitely prefer the idea of not making it strictly about pay, but
> this issue is challenging to na

Re: [Discuss] Fwd: What makes a team member?

[Aaron Wolf]

On 10/17/2015 09:54 PM, Jason Harrer wrote:
> Hi, Jon -
> 
> I'm assuming you're referring to the Team Member designation for users
> affiliated with projects on Snowdrift.coop.  If you're referring to
> something else, then this response may not be valid for your question,
> and my apologies in advance for the misunderstanding.
> 

Thanks for the thoughts, Jason. I think this perspective *will* help Jon
make sense of other things. But the topic is indeed different. This is
about who gets to count for which class of co-op member as
Snowdrift.coop proposes a *multistakeholder* co-op model. So, there are
three classes: Snowdrift, Projects, General. The first is for the
employees/team of Snowdrift specifically (like working on the site
itself), the second is those who work on other projects that we help
fund, and the third is people who are only patrons.

The question is: How do we determine who gets to count enough as a team
member of Snowdrift and thus get to vote in that member class in the
co-op? The same question also must be answered for counting as a member
of other project teams too.


> My first thought on your ask is that there seems to be an assumption
> that all projects that will be signing up for Snowdrift.coop will be
> coops themselves.

We do not assume that projects must themselves run as co-ops, we just
encourage them to.

> 
> Many of the Open Source software projects that are out there are a
> one-man or few-man show.  There's not enough folks there to justify a
> full on command hierarchy like there would be at a corporation. 
> Especially at the beginning, many of the folks will be purely
> volunteer.  Until these projects get up and running, there's a chance
> that not even the one-man contributors may be getting paid to work on
> the project (or, potentially, paid enough, as some only get paid a small
> amount each month, potentially less than minimum wage in whatever
> state/province/county/country/etc. they hail from, which would then lead
> to the question of...  at what threshold of payment would one be
> considered an employee vs. a volunteer?).  If you're talking about some
> of the other project types that Snowdrift.coop is available for (music,
> art, writing, etc.), it's even less likely that they'll fit a coop or
> command-hierarchy mold.

Regardless of internally working as a co-op, each of these projects gets
to have their participants be members of the Snowdrift co-op. So your
question remains: how do we determine someone counting as the project
class? In other words, does a musician who lists their music on the site
and fails to get much support get the same membership status and vote as
someone who gets their entire income funded through their project on
Snowdrift.coop?

It's not about their internal operations, it's about the position in
decision-making for Snowdrift.coop policies and decisions.

> 
> That being said, a team member to me is someone working on the project. 
> It makes no discernment about whether they're paid or volunteer, nor
> does "team member" on its own really provide any hierarchy, nor do I
> believe such a distinction is really necessary.  They are all working on
> the project, and from the public's perspective, that's really all they
> need to know about any individual person.  Yes, we can have a spot
> somewhere on a project page that identifies how many paid employees a
> project has, as I can see the benefit of that from a "Where is the money
> I'm donating going to?" perspective, but calling out individuals as
> employees or volunteers in the list is really unnecessary.

Right. But for the issue in question here, we need to determine
*legally* sound definitions of who gets to count as a project team
member given that they have legal rights as a co-op member (voting for
Board elections etc., with a distinct voting class being project teams
vs general patrons). So the challenge is that we *need* some way that
isn't totally unspecified as to who gets to decide or what criteria is
used for whether someone counts as part of project teams.

I definitely prefer the idea of not making it strictly about pay, but
this issue is challenging to nail down. And we have to nail it down in
some legal form.

> 
> Yes, there are admins and moderators outside of the team member moniker,
> but that's related to who controls what on Snowdrift.coop, not
> necessarily the project itself, and there won't always be a direct
> correlation between the two (e.g. Assuming a company structure here,
> neither a CEO nor even a CIO may necessarily be the administrator for
> their Snowdrift.coop project pages... it could potentially be just
> someone on staff in the IT department or even an admin assistant).
> 
> Again, my apologies if I'm misunderstanding, but if you're asking what I
> think you're asking, then my vote would be against changing the project
> user designations.

So, in the end, your points aren't entirely off-topic, they are very
relevant. We want to have t

Re: [Discuss] Fwd: What makes a team member?

[Jason Harrer]

Hi, Jon -

I'm assuming you're referring to the Team Member designation for users
affiliated with projects on Snowdrift.coop.  If you're referring to
something else, then this response may not be valid for your question, and
my apologies in advance for the misunderstanding.

My first thought on your ask is that there seems to be an assumption that
all projects that will be signing up for Snowdrift.coop will be coops
themselves.

Many of the Open Source software projects that are out there are a one-man
or few-man show.  There's not enough folks there to justify a full on
command hierarchy like there would be at a corporation.  Especially at the
beginning, many of the folks will be purely volunteer.  Until these
projects get up and running, there's a chance that not even the one-man
contributors may be getting paid to work on the project (or, potentially,
paid enough, as some only get paid a small amount each month, potentially
less than minimum wage in whatever state/province/county/country/etc. they
hail from, which would then lead to the question of...  at what threshold
of payment would one be considered an employee vs. a volunteer?).  If
you're talking about some of the other project types that Snowdrift.coop is
available for (music, art, writing, etc.), it's even less likely that
they'll fit a coop or command-hierarchy mold.

That being said, a team member to me is someone working on the project.  It
makes no discernment about whether they're paid or volunteer, nor does
"team member" on its own really provide any hierarchy, nor do I believe
such a distinction is really necessary.  They are all working on the
project, and from the public's perspective, that's really all they need to
know about any individual person.  Yes, we can have a spot somewhere on a
project page that identifies how many paid employees a project has, as I
can see the benefit of that from a "Where is the money I'm donating going
to?" perspective, but calling out individuals as employees or volunteers in
the list is really unnecessary.

Yes, there are admins and moderators outside of the team member moniker,
but that's related to who controls what on Snowdrift.coop, not necessarily
the project itself, and there won't always be a direct correlation between
the two (e.g. Assuming a company structure here, neither a CEO nor even a
CIO may necessarily be the administrator for their Snowdrift.coop project
pages... it could potentially be just someone on staff in the IT department
or even an admin assistant).

Again, my apologies if I'm misunderstanding, but if you're asking what I
think you're asking, then my vote would be against changing the project
user designations.

On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 3:45 PM, Jonathan Roberts  wrote:

> Hey all,
>
> I've been trying to solve the problem of what makes a "snowdrift project
> team member?" Snowdrift project team members elect a special representative
> on the board of directors, and it is assumed that they are tied in some way
> to the work of the co-op, but it's unclear what qualifications this group
> of people has, how their roles should be organized, what expectations
> should be put on them and who has the authority to ad them to that class.
>
> I propose that instead of one class of "team members" that we have
> "employees" and "contributors." The "employees" would be hired and overseen
> by the general manager and would elect a special board representative. The
> "contributors" could be a much more open list; it could give credit to
> anyone who's helped out, list their contact info, and indicate whether they
> are still actively working on anything and what it is. There is a question
> in this framework of whether this class should also have a special board
> representative. I would say no, except that I think it is important that
> there be a designated advocate for anyone who thinks they should be getting
> payed for the work they're doing.
>
> The biggest downside to this system I see is that we don't know,
> especially starting out, if we're going to have any money to pay people,
> even if they are indispensable to the ongoing functioning of snowdrift. One
> solution to this would be to let the GM include "unpayed staff" in the
> class at their discretion. We could also have it be a job qualification for
> any potential employee that they be listed as "active" on the
> "contributors" list, which could be governed by an algorithm that measures
> a base level of activity on the site.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -Jon
>
>
> ___
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
> https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

[Discuss] Fwd: What makes a team member?

[Jonathan Roberts]

Hey all,

I've been trying to solve the problem of what makes a "snowdrift project
team member?" Snowdrift project team members elect a special representative
on the board of directors, and it is assumed that they are tied in some way
to the work of the co-op, but it's unclear what qualifications this group
of people has, how their roles should be organized, what expectations
should be put on them and who has the authority to ad them to that class.

I propose that instead of one class of "team members" that we have
"employees" and "contributors." The "employees" would be hired and overseen
by the general manager and would elect a special board representative. The
"contributors" could be a much more open list; it could give credit to
anyone who's helped out, list their contact info, and indicate whether they
are still actively working on anything and what it is. There is a question
in this framework of whether this class should also have a special board
representative. I would say no, except that I think it is important that
there be a designated advocate for anyone who thinks they should be getting
payed for the work they're doing.

The biggest downside to this system I see is that we don't know, especially
starting out, if we're going to have any money to pay people, even if they
are indispensable to the ongoing functioning of snowdrift. One solution to
this would be to let the GM include "unpayed staff" in the class at their
discretion. We could also have it be a job qualification for any potential
employee that they be listed as "active" on the "contributors" list, which
could be governed by an algorithm that measures a base level of activity on
the site.

Thoughts?

-Jon
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss