USGENWEB-ALL-L Archives

Archiver > USGENWEB-ALL > 2008-09 > 1222527875


From: "Mike St. Clair/ST" <>
Subject: [ABChat] Website maintenance / website host issues
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 09:04:35 -0600
References: <48DA7AD4.4000008@saintclair.org><f703cdc80809250429x5313bf14y6704bd6c0a73c271@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <f703cdc80809250429x5313bf14y6704bd6c0a73c271@mail.gmail.com>


Since we will be voting on Motion 08/09-2 over the next couple of days,
I thought it would be useful to review some related administrative items
having to do with step 1, the Webmaster Study Group.

Whenever the vote finishes, appointments will have to be made to the
group. Once the group has been established, they will have three weeks
to complete their work and report back to the full AB with a proposed
webmaster position description and proposed reporting relationships.
That means the group will have to really get cracking. The following
have expressed a willingness to serve as a member of the group:

Annie, Concetta, Cyndie, Denise, Mike, Sherri

I think 3 or 4 would be about the right size. I suspect the full group
of volunteers might be too many.

It would be useful for each of the volunteers to say whether they want
badly to be in the group, whether they are willing but would just as
soon not, or somewhere in between. I propose a way to indicate this
would be to indicate this on a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 means you'll
be really disappointed not to be included and 0 means you do not want to
be included. If you respond anything but 0, indicate your availability
for discussions and research to move the job forward during the next 4
weeks, assuming the job will be done by 4 weeks from now. I intend to
propose approval of a group of members, based on the response to the
questions here immediately if this motion is approved by the AB.

In addition will you indicate what you think would be the ideal size for
this group.

One last item it would be useful for you to respond to. The NC has
indicated she would like to be part of this group. I think for her to
be a part of it (for purposes of the reporting relationships section)
could be considered an implied conflict of interest. I believe the
selected group should decide that, but should consider any input
received from the rest of the AB on the issue. Note that the motion
directs that the input of the NC and the webmaster shall be solicited
and considered. So there are three levels of involvement I can envision
for the NC. Level 1 involves that directed by the motion: to provide
input only. Level 2 would include involvement in the discussions, but
with no vote. Level 3 would be as a full member of the group.

Note that a number of members of the board and several project members
have idicated they thought the Webmaster Study Group's official
deliberations should take place in public. The other option is to
deliberate by private email, but present the results for public
deliberation by the AB, first on ABChat and then on Board. The NC has
indicated that a mailing list is available for such deliberation that
should would make available immediately. I also have another "public
deliberation vehicle" to show the group when they are selected. I think
that the selected Webmaster Study Group should decide this issue, but
should consider the input from the full AB.

I will send another message very shortly that includes just the
questions and to which I would appreciate responses if you have any
opinion on these questions.

Mike St. Clair

This thread: