RE: [atlarge-discuss] RE: [atlarge-panel] Web Site Updates?

[espresso@e-scape.net]

At 22:22 -0800 2002/11/20, Bruce Young wrote:
>Remember the concept of Span of Control?  If you are giving someone the
>responsibility (in this case to run the Web site!), you give him the
>authority that goes with it.

Perhaps I've missed something somewhere but I think, like Bruce, that giving somebody a responsibility also means giving them the necessary authority.

However, where we *may* be parting company is over just what authority belongs to whom. To my mind, the model for WG-Web I described earlier works like this in terms of lines of authority:

The membership "at large" gives the Panel authority to conduct the routine business of the organization and perform a certain policy mandate which (presumably) includes appointment of a Webmaster and receiving reports from the Webmaster and WG-Web to inform its deliberations.

The Panel authorizes a Webmaster:
- to deal with the technical aspects of running the organization's Web site, - to propose software and design aspects of the organization's Web presence as a whole, 
- to install or post whatever is decided upon as suitable,
- to take the necessary preventive measures to secure the site from hack attacks and unauthorized FTPs, etc.
- to take prompt action to mitigate damage when something goes wrong,
- to recommend software, methods and procedures to ensure regular updating, ongoing improvements to presentation, addition of links to relevant materials in a timely manner, etc.
It also charges the Webmaster with the responsibility of regularly reporting on the above and carrying out instructions the Panel and WG-Web may make in the light of those reports.

The membership authorizes the WG-Web:
- to ensure that all aspects of the Web site, mailing lists and forums, including usability and language issues, are properly followed up on an ongoing basis,
- to discuss issues and propose policies relating to "best practices" and processes involved in operating the Web site, lists and forums, including policies on linkage to external sites and production of human-readable summaries of complex materials found elsewhere,
- to ask the Panel to call for a membership vote on WG-Web's recommendations when necessary,
- to ask the Webmaster to post approved documents and correct technical or editorial problems (without requiring a Panel or membership vote each time a broken link or typo needs fixing)
- to delegate to individual volunteers (within the WG or otherwise) specific responsibility for smaller parts of its mandate (e.g., re: list management or monitoring of forum activity).

In this model, all of the parties involved are volunteers, not unpaid employees. Their opinions matter and any differences must be resolved through civilized discussion within WG-Web, with the Panel's assistance, or by a vote of the membership as the ultimate authority.

In that kind of environment, there is no reason why the Webmaster must be the Chair of WG-Web, nor does the Chair of WG-Web have any more authority than any other member *except* insofar as he/she is responsible for keeping the WG-Web's discussions organized and civilized to ensure it fulfils its functions. 

By the same token, the Webmaster has the authority to oversee all technical aspects of the Web site, to make any recommendations s/he can based on her/his particular expertise, and to take emergency action when necessary. but neither has nor needs any authority over WG-Web or its editorial or policy-recommending aspects. 

The Webmaster should not be the only person in the group with FTP access, knowledge of passwords, etc. In practice, nobody else should be *using* those things ... but Webmasters, like other mortals, are subject to life's vagaries. We don't want to face a situation where a future Webmaster's sudden illness or departure means nobody can step in to fill the gap.

The goal, I think, is for ICANNATLARGE.ORG to become a permanently-established, functional organization which can continue to serve its membership well regardless of who occupies which seat within its Panel, committees or administrative roles. 

My ideas may strike some as needlessly formal and bureaucratic (not to mention uncool) but I'm afraid they are based on the sad reality that organizations which do not take steps to establish good procedures and the habit of making sure things are approved before they are executed may soon find themselves falling apart. 

Sometimes all it takes is the departure of two or three key people to make a shambles of everything; at others, it's enough to have a few newcomers decide it is easier to turn the organization into an autocracy than to read and properly amend previous decisions and let the members vote on the change of direction. I'm now dealing with the repercussions of the influx of a handful of "clean-sweep" types into two other organizations and I sure as heck don't want to see it happen here.

Most sincerely,

Judyth


##########################################################
Judyth Mermelstein     "cogito ergo lego ergo cogito..."
Montreal, QC           <espresso@e-scape.net>
##########################################################
"A word to the wise is sufficient. For others, use more."
##########################################################



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de