rudy wrote: > >Whatcha think? > > i think it's a great start, and thanks for jumping in > > one of the things that peeves me -- i'll make no bones about it, and take > my lumps -- is the way people (not you specifically, ron, people in > general) focus on the "how" of getting something done, rather than the > "what" of what should be done\ yep > let me briefly come back to your post, ron -- > > > ** technical committee ... > > from your description, this is in place already, it's thesite > (the people on thesite discussion list) yep > > ** correspondence committee ... > > again from your description, this is place already, it's the admin group yep > in the past, the admin group has handled two functions, the day-to-day > running of evolt, as well as setting strategic direction > > this latter function is now shifting here, to theforum, but ultimately, > assuming we reach nfp status, will be assumed by the board of directors yep > > ** fundraising/finance ... > > board of directors, again, assuming we agree to go nfp yep > now, at this point, i recognize there is a strong temptation to start > asking questions like "how should we get there?" and "how do we elect board > members?" and "how should the board get input from the general membership?" > and so on yep > notice anything? > > we should probably focus on "what" for a while, at least till we get > rolling bingo > i suspect that it will be a short discussion, because i think we're all > going to pretty much agree on a few things, e.g. > > 1. thelist, and the people on it, as well as the various evolt > sites (*.e.o) are the "sine qua non" assets of evolt > > 2. the founding principles of evolt are "by web developers, for web > developers" and "giving something back" > > 3. the assets of evolt need to be protected, nurtured, enhanced > > 4. not-for-profit incorporation achieves many objectives for 3. > > these are just off the top of my head, and i'm sure y'all can come up with > lots more yep > while i was writing this, ron made an excellent suggestion -- > > a) Publish existing evolt vision and mission statement. > b) Get feedback from all evolt on vision. > c) Publish final evolt vision and mission statement > d) Define system/s needed to support vision and mission statement > e) Let groups assemble to develop needed system/s (this allows > all evolt members to contribute in their area of > expertise/interest) > > my only comment on the above is that d) and e) are really about "how" and > that's where all the controversy seems to be this seems to be true. my thoughts were: 1) most of the things we need to keep the community healthy are in place and functioning. leave them alone for now 2) slow down, take a deep breath and think about and discuss what we need to do to keep the community healthy, and growing in the future. > anybody want to go ahead with a) through c) ? I would like to, but we have better writers in our community than I. rudy, you made a clean, clear and concise statement in your post. There is some good stuff in Mishka's FAQ article. Would one or several of our good writers take these things and draft a mission statement, motto and whatever else can be used to set a foundation and anchor for publishing? Ron D.