[Foundation-l] New list admin: Ral315

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
When the WMF office needs to organise volunteers, they do so to fulfil the
needs that the WMF as an organisation has. This is not necessarily the same
thing as how the projects and their communities can make the work of our
volunteers more effective. Obviously there may be a lot of overlap between
what a council of volunteers organises and what Cary organises consequently
a high level of collaboration with the WMF is a sensible thing to do.

A council is to serve the needs of our communities, to coordinate our
efforts, to ensure that the lessons learned are incorporated in new efforts.
We should do this for our own reasons. Cary is capable enough to ensure that
the things HE needs to coordinate will get the attention he is able to give
and I am sure that a council will be happy to help as much as is feasible.
Thanks,
      GerardM

On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 7:45 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro at gmail.com
> wrote:

> Milos Rancic wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 10:29 AM, Gerard Meijssen
> > <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hoi,
> >> Great idea we might call it a volunteer council :) Maybe this council
> can
> >> liaise strongly with Cary in stead of making him the head honcho ...
> >> Thanks,
> >>        GerardM
> >>
> >> NB no irony intended !!
> >>
> >
> > There are two different starting points between the Council and the
> > Committee intentions: Council was intended to represent (somehow)
> > community's (or communities') will, while committee is a working body
> > with a particular goal. With or without council, for me it is obvious
> > that we should have a body which manages volunteers' enthusiasm toward
> > higher involvement. (And, according to the size of the volunteer
> > community, this is not a job for one person.)
> >
>
> It is not a job for a committee either.
>
> I think a better way of looking at the matter would be to
> approach it from the direction of how it looks to Cary;
>
> Is there stuff he would be able to accomplish in his area
> of responsibility if only there were more hours in a day?
>
> Are there things that he personally could not be able to
> accomplish even if there were 72 hours in a day, but some
> other person with complementary skills _might_ be able
> to accomplish?
>
> Or is the situation as Cary sees it such that no matter
> how much time or men you threw at it, pretty much the
> same things would get accomplished, but merely with
> a greater expenditure of people and time?
>
> In short, better than a committee or "squad" or whatever,
> would be to split the task into two or more complementary
> areas of responsibility, *if* that is what Cary thinks would
> be useful.
>
>
> Yours,
>
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>