On 06/03/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
This is naive. I am very much in support of of maximum volunteer inpout. You cannot oblige anybody to work a specified number of hours per week unless they are getting something out of it. That something may still be intangible, like personal satisfaction, instead of money; pure altruism is unlikely to be enough.
Surely those who volunteer their time and energy to Wikimedia projects are in some way committed to what the Foundation is trying to achieve? If this is the case, then most of our volunteers *do* get satisfaction out of their work. I don't think this satisfaction would disappear if they started being asked to do tasks rather than electing to do them. Volunteers would volunteer to their own areas of interest, after all. Perhaps I misunderstand you?
When you start to hassle them by phone or whatever they're more likely to say, "Screw you!" and go away.
If someone volunteers to a position that involves phone communication then they I would guess that they'd understand why it was necessary. I'm not denying that they'd sometimes get annoyed.
I'm involved with a political party and although I'm not paid or contracted, I feel obliged to fulfil certain tasks. Even though the task in particular may not be of especial interest to me, I take part because I'm furthering the party. Sometimes I get called and am disgruntled that I'll be standing outside for a couple of hours, but I feel committed enough to do it.
Similarly, I feel committed to what the Foundation is aiming to achieve. I started to get involved with Wikimedia by editing articles on Wikipedia. I was pleased to be adding to a free encyclopedia. I loved the fact that what I added could be adapted and reused without ever becoming unfree. I slowly began to appreciate the aims of the Foundation on a far more philosophical level. It is this kind of philosophical commitment that allows me to stand in the cold for a couple of hours and would allow me to be relied upon in a specified voluntary position.