Sj a écrit:
It sounds as though these positions are
responsibilities to stay
informed and to be available to the Board, as much as they are for
'assisting external collaboration,' which, as Anthere noted, dozens of
community members do every month. Let's make sure that explicit
community groups form around each of these topics, so that there is
also parallel internal collaboration.
When opportunities for external collaboration arise, I hope the points
of contact continue to be distributed among those active in that area,
to further spread recognition of effort beyond these eight named
positions and to avoid overloading anyone.
By the way, we may be slowly countering our own systemic bias, but we
are still enormous geeks -- half of the positions are related to
technology! And the rest to money, glory, and the Law. Content and
usability must fit in somewhere... I suppose those are too fundamental
and important to have made the list, rather than too boring and
silent. Still, a usability group and a content quality group are much
needed; and similar officers would have work enough to stay busy.
-- SJ
I am not very convinced. I think the positions selected really stick to
the Foundation issues. And it is not the Foundation role imho to get
involved with "content" or "quality" or "usability"
directly. These are
more communities issues. Imho. Well, at least, this is my opinion right
now, I could be convinced otherwise.
Ant