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
On 5/25/05, Tim Starling t.starling@physics.unimelb.edu.au wrote:
These official positions are intended for assisting external collaboration, and for honour and recognition, is that correct? Rather than authority and leadership? Also, people will be allowed to deal with external organisations without an official title, on the same terms that they do now, won't they? That is to say, although certain official positions may carry the power to speak "on behalf of the foundation", that won't inhibit other people from doing various external activities in aid of the foundation, such as Thomas Koll's WikiReader publication, or Erik's collaboration with Kennisnet?
-- Tim Starling
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l