Sj wrote:
I would like to present a somewhat contra-OP argument
that the core of
WP's success has not been its exclusive delegation of responsibility
to individuals, but rather its successful empowerment of /all/ of its
users, even new ones, to jump in and do what needs to be done.
Absolutely. This is key. The official positions should be thought of
as people who are co-ordinating and advising and communicating, not
people who are solely responsible for doing things, or who are the boss
of other people.
Providing Officers with unique power and authority is
a two-edged
sword; it encourages those individuals to take extra responsibility,
and provides them with authority to herd other volunteers. But simply
going out and working diligently on a project provides a similar
authority, and an internal, rather than an external, sense of
responsibility.
This is an excellent observation.
What this should be thought of is as a formalization _only_ of something
that has gone on for a long time anyway. People take responsibility for
something, they co-ordinate it, they advise, they communicate. And
especially when it comes to interfacing with the outside world, or
interfacing with the board, it is better if we have some clarity -- this
is the primary purpose of identifying people with particular positions.
I would be comfortable with the creation of special
interest groups
based around the priorities of the community and the foundation,
before deciding on individuals to represent those interests. Creating
titled individuals to carve out new interest groups, as has been
suggested in the past, is certainly unwiki and probably unscalable.
It absolutely should not be a process of creating, but rather of
recognizing.
--Jimbo