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(a)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(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--
+sj+
_ _ :-------.-.--------.--.--------.-.--------.--.--------[...]