No subject

able to achieve something. This in itself is a great thing to happen
because shows an opportunity to get closer to our goals. But isn't
actually useful unless we accompany that burst of energy with the will
of putting in place whatever is needed for that something to be
achieved.

In this particular case, we could ask the Activity team coordinator to
call for a meeting and add it to the agenda. If the team likes the
goal but it turns out that there aren't available resources for
tackling the specific work that derives from that goal, we could see
if the Community team wants to add to their TODO list finding people
interested in working on that kind of activities.

We again request the community manager to add to their meeting agenda
this item, the community team meets and sees if their recruitment
strategy is adequate or if it can be improved in order to find
activity developers.

It may seem that I'm proposing adding bureaucracy for the sake of it
or that I want to put bosses on top of volunteers, but rather what I'm
saying is that unless we give visibility to issues, explicitly discuss
things and people take ownership of responsibility areas, most things
won't happen.

So I want to know: do people agree that a team structure with named
coordinators and members could help us do more and better, or are
people happy with just hoping that someone will fall from the sky and
do the right stuff?

Regards,

Tomeu

> Cheers,
> Christoph
> --
> Christoph Derndorfer
> co-editor, olpcnews
> url: www.olpcnews.com
> e-mail: christoph at olpcnews.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>
>