[ogb-discuss] Community Facilitators

[Liane Praza]

Alan Coopersmith writes:
> If as a core contributor to the community, you don't know of a facilitator
> though, odds are your community never got around to appointing one.   We've
> been lax in requiring this from communities, so few have done so.

It's not even been requested, AFAIK.  Not all core contributors follow
ogb-discuss.  (And I'm not convinced they should have to.)

However, I'd encourage the OGB to consider adopting a sensible policy
of allowing any core contributor to act as facilitor for a
well-functioning community.  If the OGB is unable to get a response
from existing core contributors when necssary (or if community members
report a lack of action from core contributors on governance issues like
project creation or voting), the OGB can pursue explicit creation of a
facilitator to, um, facilitate interaction with a disfunctional
community.

I thought this was where things were heading in earlier drafts of
the constitution so maybe there was a good reason to avoid this path.
Apologies if I've just forgotten those discussions.

Obviously, any community could choose to not work this way, and appoint
an explicit facilitator instead of allowing any core contributor to speak
on their behalf.

(I can easily get a facilitator appointed for the SMF community, and
will do so if my suggestion is rejected.  But this seems like another
piece to maintain that could reduce to 'core contributors' in most cases.)

liane