On 13/07/2011 17:55, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 13 July 2011 14:17, Charles Matthewscharles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 13/07/2011 13:12, Lodewijk wrote:
Hence Mike Peel was right when he mentioned that if there are no volunteers, it ain't gonna work.
That is quite true; but simply tagging an issue with {{sofixit}} isn't in itself constructive. My remarks which were noted in the Signpost were intended as a supplement to such "tagging". Work is much more likely to find its volunteers when it is comprehensible.
There are two approaches the chapter could take with this kind of thing. It could just wait and see if anyone takes the initiative and volunteers to do it and then support them if they do (which is what they did) or it would take a pro-active approach and specifically ask for volunteers to do it (which would, as you say, require making the job description clear).
The latter approach is obviously more likely to get results, but there are two downsides I can see: 1) someone that takes the initiative is more likely to see the project through and do it without too much involvement from the already very busy board and 2) that already very busy board would need to find the time the put together the request for volunteers and that time may end up wasted if nobody responds.
There are certainly other approaches. No serious use has been made of the UK wiki in relation to WLM.
I don't see a WMUK board minute on the matter. I think WMUK participation in WLM went by default earlier in this year, because it was not put on the board agenda. It may have course have been discussed on the board list; but nothing clear was communicated to the outside world about it.
The Dutch experience with WLM is apparently that it brings in new people. There are limitations to the argument that there is too much to do and not enough people to do it. If not enough is invested in the right sorts of research and communications efforts that could improve matters, it becomes self-defeating.
Charles