On 13 July 2011 14:17, Charles
Matthews<charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 13/07/2011 13:12, Lodewijk wrote:
Hence Mike Peel was right when he mentioned that
if there are no
volunteers, it ain't gonna work.
That is quite true; but simply tagging an
issue with {{sofixit}} isn't
in itself constructive. My remarks which were noted in the Signpost were
intended as a supplement to such "tagging". Work is much more likely to
find its volunteers when it is comprehensible.
There are two approaches the
chapter could take with this kind of
thing. It could just wait and see if anyone takes the initiative and
volunteers to do it and then support them if they do (which is what
they did) or it would take a pro-active approach and specifically ask
for volunteers to do it (which would, as you say, require making the
job description clear).
The latter approach is obviously more likely to get results, but there
are two downsides I can see: 1) someone that takes the initiative is
more likely to see the project through and do it without too much
involvement from the already very busy board and 2) that already very
busy board would need to find the time the put together the request
for volunteers and that time may end up wasted if nobody responds.
There are certainly other approaches. No serious use has been made of
the UK wiki in relation to WLM.
I don't see a WMUK board minute on the matter. I think WMUK
participation in WLM went by default earlier in this year, because it
was not put on the board agenda. It may have course have been discussed
on the board list; but nothing clear was communicated to the outside
world about it.
The Dutch experience with WLM is apparently that it brings in new
people. There are limitations to the argument that there is too much to
do and not enough people to do it. If not enough is invested in the
right sorts of research and communications efforts that could improve
matters, it becomes self-defeating.
Charles