USGENWEB-ALL-L Archives

Archiver > USGENWEB-ALL > 2008-10 > 1224826894


From: "Mike St. Clair/ST" <>
Subject: Re: [ABChat] Official Report of the Webmaster Study Group
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 23:41:34 -0600
References: <49013ACB.4040904@saintclair.org><51394f690810232122x5e6efa58mc97c50b9d7465dc1@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <51394f690810232122x5e6efa58mc97c50b9d7465dc1@mail.gmail.com>


My answers in stream. Any other members of the WSG should feel free to
answer as well.

Mike

Gail Kilgore wrote:
> (c) The individual must be able to devote a total of at least 24
> hours per month to their duties as webmaster, spread out across the month.
>
> Mike, where did you come up with 24 hours and why just that amount of time
> in a month?
>
>
>

It's my understanding that this was somewhat a translation of something
in past webmaster calls, which said "one day a month" and knowing that
webmasters aren't typically allowed any sleep it became 24 hours. I've
gotten feedback along the way that this was both over kill and not as
much time as it would really take.

I suspect that when major redesigns of the site took place, the time
spent well exceeded 24 hours, but that when things are running smoothly
thats plenty. I think the purpose of including some number here was to
ensure that potential webmasters knew they might sometime have to spend
that much time so applicants wouldn't step forward if they had very
limited time available for extra service to the project.

Do you have any feelings about whether this should be a larger or
smaller number?

>
>
>> (a) Makes website changes requested by the advisory board or the
>> National Coordinator.
>>
>
>
> Mike, wouldn't it be better instead of the AB or the NC requesting the
> changes, the person appointed to be the liaison between the two be the one
> to request the changes?
>
>
>

I'm not sure. I guess I wasn't thinking that the liason would be
strictly a funnel. I don't think there is the same sort of issue that
we have with the GC and EC where we want to make sure political or
personal issues don't get in the way of their duties. I was thinking
that the entire board should support the webmaster, but that the liaison
would step forward if problems of any sort occurred to ensure
communication going both directions was working well. They should also
keep completely up to date on what the bylaw and procedure requirements
were, speak out if anything was getting out of kilter, and bring
anything up for discussion by the AB if something seemed to require
that. I'm willing to listen to anyone else's take on this.

Your suggestion would be one way to make sure the webmaster didn't get
pulled in multiple directions. Another may be to let any AB member
suggestion a change, but allow the liaison to "veto" if there is good
reason.

In the past communication with the webmaster was always by private
email, which means without any record and subject to misunderstandings
in the case of a lost or misunderstood email. The way we decided to
address this initially was for the webmasters to keep an online log that
we can review at any time. In it they would record requests received,
and actions planned and taken, along with any problems arising. Maybe
that will do the trick. If not, we can take another look. The idea is
that both the AB and the webmaster team will always be aware of what's
in the pipeline and be useful in future evaluation of our needs in this
area.

>
>>
>>
>> (d) The webmaster and assistant webmaster will only be granted ftp
>> access to those portions of the National site for which the Advisory
>> Board have assigned them responsibility.
>>
>
>
> Mike, maybe some where in here it should be noted that they are the* only
> ones* that can ftp to the National site.
>

You are aware that the NC has had to do that in some circumstances
during the past month or so, when the webmaster was unavailable. Having
the assistant should help prevent that. I believe our intention was for
these two do do all the site changes, but perhaps we need to allow for
emergencies. I'd say the natural emergency backups would be the NC and
the liaison. I'd support the idea that such emergencies must be made
known to the board. Let me think about how I would word that. Any one
else have a comment on this?

> Mike, if you can answer my questions, I think you and your team have done an
> outstanding job in the time that was allocated to you and your team.
>
> You have covered the problem areas, your have made it known that it is just
> not the NC but it has to include the AB as well. I think that the liaison
> to the webmaster is better than directions coming from all directions.
>
> Great job and thank you one and all!!!
>
> Gail
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
>

This thread: