[Foundation-l] Official Positions

Mon May 16 16:42:16 UTC 2005

Sj wrote:
> I would like to present a somewhat contra-OP argument that the core of
> WP's success has not been its exclusive delegation of responsibility
> to individuals, but rather its successful empowerment of /all/ of its
> users, even new ones, to jump in and do what needs to be done.

Absolutely.  This is key.  The official positions should be thought of
as people who are co-ordinating and advising and communicating, not
people who are solely responsible for doing things, or who are the boss
of other people.

> Providing Officers with unique power and authority is a two-edged
> sword; it encourages those individuals to take extra responsibility,
> and provides them with authority to herd other volunteers.  But simply
> going out and working diligently on a project provides a similar
> authority, and an internal, rather than an external, sense of
> responsibility.

This is an excellent observation.

What this should be thought of is as a formalization _only_ of something
that has gone on for a long time anyway.  People take responsibility for
something, they co-ordinate it, they advise, they communicate. And
especially when it comes to interfacing with the outside world, or
interfacing with the board, it is better if we have some clarity -- this
is the primary purpose of identifying people with particular positions.

> I would be comfortable with the creation of special interest groups
> based around the priorities of the community and the foundation,
> before deciding on individuals to represent those interests.  Creating
> titled individuals to carve out new interest groups, as has been
> suggested in the past, is certainly unwiki and probably unscalable.

It absolutely should not be a process of creating, but rather of
recognizing.

--Jimbo