USGENWEB-ALL-L Archives

Archiver > USGENWEB-ALL > 2008-10 > 1224853208


From: "Concetta Phillipps" <>
Subject: Re: [ABChat] Official Report of the Webmaster Study Group
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 08:00:08 -0500
References: <49013ACB.4040904@saintclair.org><51394f690810232122x5e6efa58mc97c50b9d7465dc1@mail.gmail.com><4901600E.5050407@saintclair.org>
In-Reply-To: <4901600E.5050407@saintclair.org>


Actually, I believe its supposed to be 3 working days, not one actual day.
When Phyllis did the original proposal, we had imagined that there would
be some time each month where the webmaster would have things to do as a
minimum - posting things, checking logs, tweaking and correcting. We picked
24 hours so that the webmaster could choose to do things all in one actual
day, broken over working days of 8 hours each, or most ideally, six
four-hour blocks. That way, the webmaster would have time to do their own
work as well as ours.

Concetta

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:41 AM, Mike St. Clair/ST <>wrote:

> 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?
>
> >
>

This thread: