[ogb-discuss] Community Facilitators

[Jim Grisanzio]

Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-10-03 at 21:44 +0900, Jim Grisanzio wrote:
>> That's my reading of it, too. Although I'm certainly fine with core 
>> contributors being able to act as facilitators, it's probably easier if 
>> it's one person per CG.
> 
> Easier for whom?  

Everyone. Easier for the OGB to document. Easier for new community 
members to find a person to help them with some issue or process. Sure, 
it's easier to have it automated, but right now it's manual.

> Certainly not the potential contributor with, say, an
> approved but not yet created project, who currently *can* find a core
> contributor, but has no way short of pestering the community group and
> the OGB to find the facilitator, setting off a long flaming thread in
> the process without actually solving his problem.

If you have an approved but not yet created project that no one has sent 
to the OGB as per the project creation process then I'd argue that you 
don't have an approved project. The process hasn't been completed. Why 
is it so difficult for someone in that CG to monitor the list for 
project discussions and votes, walk people through the process, and keep 
track of stuff? What am I missing? I do this with Advocacy specifically 
because we have a lot people in user groups around the world whose first 
language is not English, and so some of this is confusing. So, I walk 
everyone through it from beginning to end.

> what's more, a single facilitator for a large CG could become a
> bottleneck.

I can't believe this is such a big deal. When I read 7.5 of the 
Constitution it seems clear to me that each CG has a Facilitator, and 
that Facilitator /actively/ manages the affairs of the CG and provides a 
/direct/ means of communication with the OGB. That doesn't mean that 
others can't communicate, but it means that someone is /responsible/ for 
communicating.

> I'm going back to coding now,

And I'm going to sleep. :)

Jim
-- 
http://blogs.sun.som/jimgris