[arg_discuss] ARG SIG Draft Constitution

[Brooke Thompson]

pulling out bits & pieces from Andrea & Brian....

Andrea:

>  First, I'd suggest skipping the whole Committee business

> -- I figure the whole SIG is our Committee, really -- and just elect

> an executive group of, say, three people.


Brian:

>>> From my personal experience, that works fine with small  

>>> organizations where

>> the Committee exists primarily as a group of catalysts, but can  

>> present

>> intrinsic problems that feel cliquish as the organization grows. In  

>> essence,

>> it means the membership of the SIG has no real role in the  

>> management of the

>> SIG and, in worse case scenario, might end up existing simply as  

>> the voting

>> body to appoint a "strong executive trio".



>> 2. Similarly, the structure suggested is kinda divorced from the  

>> goals

>> articulated. I tend to favor organization structures that grow from

>> responsibility instead of authority. To illustrate, what if there  

>> were

>> standing committees that anyone could join that were tasked with  

>> particular

>> duties, and the organizing committee was in essence the chairs of  

>> each of

>> those committees?



My take:
I agree with Brian, but I can also see the need for a small executive  
group that is responsible for the SIG in a more business-like sense.  
Ideally, this group would have little power/influence, as most of that  
should come from those participating. However, they can deal with the  
various business junk & step in for each other when needed.


Andrea:

> I am all for forming sub-committees for specific purposes, like, say,

> running ARGology or scheduling IRC chats or coming up with Topic of

> the Week topics, but we've had a lot of trouble in the past getting

> solid commitments for this kind of thing. Do we thing formalizing

> positions like that would encourage participation?


In my experience, it's a mixed bag. Sometimes having some formalized  
groups and/or positions does help. Not only does it provide for a way  
for people to find ways to get involved, but it develops leaders and  
organizers who tend to keep things going. However, it takes someone(s)  
with a bit of time and a bit more passion to make those groups solid  
and if they stagnate for a while, that can actually decrease  
participation because the group looks unproductive and who wants to  
get involved with that? However, doling out leadership titles can  
sometimes counteract that because titles come with accountability.

Now, on your list, I'm not sure that "Topic of the Week" requires an  
entire committee - in my experience, those things tend to be most  
successful when they're organic and happen when one person takes it on  
and just does it repeatedly until it becomes a weekly topic. The  
value, in that case, is often less about the topic and more about the  
sense of regularity and camaraderie that helps to strengthen community  
bonds. The discussions that come out of them just happen to be a great  
bonus :) ARGology, however, is something that seems made for a  
committee.



>