[Foundation-l] Where we are headed

[Gavin Chait]

Continuity is less about individuals than it is about systems and the 
organisation of information.

This means that the system must be defined.  Definition does not imply 
limitation.  It is important to know how new projects are organised, run and 
scrutinised without declaring what they should be.  How far one goes with 
the hierarchy is also important.  Are different language versions or large 
sub-projects of a common project different projects?  Many "embarrassing" 
moments have come out of English content wikis.  How many potential pitfalls 
are waiting in other languages?  How feasible is it to have language experts 
for each of the wikis?  Recognising limitations inherent in the system is 
also important - these should be declared.

The professional project manager can still be a volunteer.  There are large 
numbers of astonishingly talented people willing to work for free for causes 
they believe in.  The difference between a volunteer and a "professional" is 
not about paid / unpaid it is about the time dedicated to a project and 
their accountability.  Some projects are large enough to require full-time 
commitment.  Project managers must accept this and be responsible.  Not all 
the things that need doing are glamorous.

Project management may not be about content generation alone.  It is also 
about budgets, settling disputes and being responsible and answerable to the 
organisation at large.  If something goes wrong, they must sort it out 
immediately and understand and report back on how it happened.  They are 
also there to find their own successor.

There must be a project log, and project manual that details exactly how 
things are done (thus ensuring a consistent approach).  Clearly the manual 
can evolve but it must be the DNA for the project.

A simple project blog or mailing list isn't good enough since the quantity 
of information produced (and the various diversions it follows) makes rapid 
decision making impossible.  In reality, each project needs its own 
moderated (and access limited) wiki where the basics are paired down:  how 
things are done, daily / weekly / monthly ... tasks, etc.  At the moment 
projects may be run by the person who started them or someone one or two 
iterations away.  What happens in 50 years?

The organisation itself requires a similar approach with a slightly larger 
set of responsibilities:  PR, legal, accounting, admin and an overall 
director.  These are the trappings of any formal development organisation. 
Having them doesn't limit the activity of the volunteers, it is simply a 
responsible way of handling information generated by the organisation.

The director also needs feedback and that will come from your board.

Each of the tasks can be defined and each of the roles can be filled.  A 
mechanism for recruiting and training new people to fill each task is much 
more straightforward when you know exactly what that task is.

I would imagine that a simple flow could be as follows:  volunteer works on 
a project, gets more involved, gets groomed to become the project leader, 
stays in that for a year and grooms his / her replacement, gets invited to 
join the core team, gets groomed to become director, serves for a set 
period, becomes a board member.  Some of these tasks are full-time, some are 
not.  The person accepting major tasks does so recognising what the 
commitment is and what it will cost them (if the tasks are unpaid).

This is continuity.  It doesn't limit the content, projects or creativity of 
the organisation.  It channels the most capable people through a system that 
maintains the integrity of their knowledge while still allowing the 
organisation to evolve and meet future needs.