[Theforum] Restructure

[aardvark]

> From: "Hugh Blair" <hblair at hotfootmail.com>
>
> > Does anyone have any objections towards reforming evolt.org's
> > volunteers into 5 groups (based on the work by Dan and Martin):
> >
> > 	Finance (handles $)
> >
> > 	Marketing (ideas for building the evolt.org name, PR, etc)
> >
> > 	Content (articles, etc -- previously the admin@ list)
> >
> > 	Development (code and design -- previously thesite@ list)
> >
> > 	Admin (server admin, list admin, etc -- *not* the same as admin@)
>
> +1 on these groups

+1

not to get mired in technical, but i assume there may be some
extremely mild overlap?  for instance, an email comes in from the
comment form, it kinda has to go to every group, otherwise one
group has to keep handing it off to the right group, which can affect
response time...

> > And with a parent group (steering committee until we come up with a
> > better name, or maybe SC is fine) made up of 2 members of each
> > subgroup.
>
> +1

+1

> > Each group shall decide how to elect their two representatives (+1
> > voting, voting application, whatever). Said reps should be
> > encouraged or required to cycle at a predefined period (6 months)?
>
> +1

+1... i like 'encouraged' over 'required', as long as the group has the
ability to boot those who won't cycle if they aren't performing in
some appropriate way...

> > Volunteers will be able to serve within as many groups as they deem
> > relevant, but cannot be a rep for more than one. Nor should they be
> > elected to serve on the SC for more than 6 continuous months.
>
> How about "elected to serve on the SC for more than 6 continuous
> months as a representative of the same group."

i like restricting the number of groups one can represent, that just
makes sense...  serving for mor than 6 continuous months, though,
do we have to codify that as long as we have a process in place to
remove people?

> > Reps who find that non-evolt.org responsibilities lessen their
> > available time should be encouraged to pass on their representation
> > (again, by some kind of vote within the group).
>
> +1  when voluntary. Otherwise this opens up the mess of a group having
> +to 'vote' this member off their group.

hmmm... yeah

> > Also, as a general guideline, rights and responsibilities (where
> > relevant -- Content, Admin, Development specifically) should be
> > based (as currently) on ability and trust/reputation within the
> > community.
>
> +1

+1

> > Should there be few major objections to this plan, I would suggest
> > that we continue with the CaseStudies on the wiki (especially the
> > volunteer names at the bottom of each) so that people can make it
> > clear where they see themselves being useful. After that, create the
> > relevant lists, populate them, and let each group form their
> > guidelines/processes/style.
>
> +1

+1

so, how long to turn this around into something workable,
assuming we all dig it?


--
Read the evolt.org case study
Usability: The Site Speaks for Itself
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1904151035/evoltorg
ISBN: 1904151035