Proposed Org Structure and definitions

[SteveColes]

OK, I have finished the first draft of my proposal on structure and job definitions. Please remember that this is just a proposal. Why have I written it?

So how does the site continue in the way I envision it, without me. (Forget the financial aspect for now.) It is not enough for the site to just continue operating the way it is. Some of you my not agree with the following assumptions that I am going make. But I ask you you to trust me a bit on this. Over the last 2 years, I have been right more often than I have been wrong about some of my weird ideas:lol:

• The site most always have a growing membership. People will always come and go.
• The site must always change, in appearance, in features, in activities, etc.
• The site must keep reasonably up to date, on a technical basis, vbulletin, PhotoPost, etc.
• Where new and/or modified functionality is required and is not available, then site staff must be able to make the necessary changes themselves.

There are 2 areas that must also change. First, I have been the primary driving force for most of the innovation on this site. I'm not bragging, it is just the current reality. I like to do this and I hope others would too, but most people seemed to feel that I wanted to it alone. That is if they tried to do something, I would not like it or I would feel that they were getting in my way. That just is not true. I want you to help. I want you to dig in. Ultimately I want you to run this site without me or least be able to.

Second I must broach a subject that is sensitive, because some of you may feel that I am explicitly talking about them, or I am trivializing there contributions, or that I am insulting them, in some other way. That is not intended. I just feel that a few things and attitudes must change.

What I would like us to do is critique it. Every point in it and even the necessity of doing it, is up for debate. Please forget what you THINK this might mean for your position, we'll get to that after we get a consensus.

If we get to a document that defines a structure that has a chance of keeping the going as I explained it above. Then we'll test it. I will add to the site To Do list everything I can think of, of things that need to be done. I will step back and the staff get the jobs done without me. Though I will act as technical consultant when asked.

Also, vBulletin will be releasing, in the near future, a new semi-major release 3.7.x. Again the staff will do the job without me.

If all that gets done in a timely manner, then I'll be happy and you all should be very proud of yourselves.

One other point, with the exception of forum moderation, this site could be run by one person with a lot of effort and time. One of my goals in writing this document was to create a structure with enough people that on a day to day basis there really won't be that much time needed for any one person. The exception to that is a new or existing staff member will probably have to put in a lot of time and effort to get up to speed technically in the first 30 days. It is my personal opinion, which you guys CAN override that if you don't have time and/or desire to put in that level of effort for a few weeks then you probably should wait until you do have the time.

So, here is the :eusa_dancProposal.:eusa_danc Please forgive the formatting, that's what you get when you use MS Word to write the document then ask it to produce an HTML page:BangHead::BangHead::slap:

 

[sapwood]

First, I applaud the cogent and well thought out proposal. Second, this is the time to formally address the issues. Right or wrong, I read this comment regarding Advisory Panel as central:

"This position is, in effect, our "Board of Directors". In fact, if and when, NCWoodworker.net becomes a legal entity, that will be their formal position."

For the past 2+ years you (Steve) have been the Visionary, President, XO, etc. No one could have done it better. Having done that, considering NCWWer as a potential not-for-profit organization (501c3) with a Board of Directors (Advisory Panel) is understandable. Such organizations are heavily dependent upon committed, active and competent staff (volunteer and/or paid). If the response is positive, the defined roles are filled, and subsequent probationary/test periods satisfied . . . go for it! If not, drop back and punt :-D

A couple of thoughts on the language and content of proposal:
1) Additional language about roles of Moderators and Super Mods to effect positive reinforcement and ensure all threads receive a response.
2) Allow removing/adding staff if/when their performance level slips too low.
3) I like the proposal to keep Advisory Panel numbers low (5-10).

HTH,
Roger

 

[SteveColes]

If not, drop back and punt :-D

A couple of thoughts on the language and content of proposal:
1) Additional language about roles of Moderators and Super Mods to effect positive reinforcement and ensure all threads receive a response.
2) Allow removing/adding staff if/when their performance level slips too low.
3) I like the proposal to keep Advisory Panel numbers low (5-10).

HTH,
Roger

Roger, would you like to suggest language for your idea. I' about worded out for today:lol:

BTW, I'm real good at punting

 

[SteveColes]

Everyone, please don't overact react. Yes, if this proposal is actually accepted by this group, then some of you might want to consider taking a different position or droping out altogether. But right now all of you are the "advisory panel". It this group, whatever your title, that is going to shape this proposal or reject it or come up with something totally different. So pleae support this discussion and please say just what you think. If this proposal is offbase or unrealistic, then let's deal with it up front.

Thanks for all your support

 

[DaveO]

Steve, it looks good to me...no typos, that I can find :lol::lol:
Those are my only thoughts for now, I have some digesting to do, and I will get back to you.

Dave

 

[cskipper]

The purpose of the definition of all positions being filled by unsolicited requests from individual members, open recruitment or private recruitment is there for members to realize that they can volunteer? This first statement doesn't say that some positions can be voluntarily requested while others cannot. So I am not sure that in and of itself it serves any particular purpose.

Something to the effect of "the staff of the North Carolina Woodworker site is comprised of members who either volunteer for their positions or are recruited for their positions. The definition of the different roles further specify what experience is required/role. Then the statements about the possibility of "professionals"....

The advisory panel sounds like a good formalization of probably what is happening now. If North Carolina Woodworker were to become a legal entity would a legal representative need to be included? Or would that occurrence initiate a whole bunch of other activity which would involve legal folks?

Under the Advisory Panel it says the the Senior Moderators (active membership will be waived in this case) - does that mean that Senior Moderators on the Advisory Panel do not have to be active members?

Under the Senior Moderators - bullet 4 - Provides direction for all other forum moderators... - the other is unnecessary.

One of the requirements for a Forum Moderator is to have been a member for at least 3 months, and Senior Moderators to have been members for at least 6 months. But Administrators only have to be members for 3 months. Is that long enough?

That's as far as I can think this evening.

 

[NCPete]

Steve, I was part of Miata.net when it went through its early development stages, and in that light I have some simple ideas for revenue creation, and can probably make a phone call, or PM or two to two of the guys that were instrumental in starting that, even tho' I haven't been there for several years, they are both still active in running the site, but have developed a competent staff to reduce their workload.

so, IOW, the basic document sounds good.

one thing I just considered, after reading the proposal, is there is no one assigned to the tasks of managing the financial aspects of the nonprofit. Where we have a CEO, we should also have one person assigned as a CFO. I know there are a couple accountants here, and at least one member has a S.O. who is an accountant. Perhaps it would be good to solicit their thoughts? just what occurred to me, as an business/accounting student

 

[clowman]

I think the over all concept is sound. One thing I would bring up is in the section of Forum Moderators.

Each discussion forum should have at least one moderator, if not two. Each moderator should probably cover 2 forums. If possible, one of the moderators should be well versed on the subject, so that they may provide a reasonably correct response to the subject matter.

Then directly under that is this section

Every post must be read by some moderator for appropriateness. Threads should be moved when they are posted in the wrong forum. Threads should be split when they go too far off topic. Threads should be stuck or closed when appropriate.

I would argue these are "policies" of the site. I respectfully submit rewording this section to state that moderators should read each post to ensure that the post adheres to the policies of the site, set forth by the advisory panel.

It may be helpful to also list that moderator should be views by the general membership as "champions of the members", if that is the correct terminology here.


Don't know if you are also looking for typos, but this is just nit picking.
In the requirements section for special administrators:

One member may hold more that one of these positions

should be
One member may hold more than one of these positions

 

[SteveColes]

As usual all of your comments are right on the mark and I will be incorporating them in the near feature. But right now I would like all of you to step back a bit and look at what this means in a more general way.

Forget the legal aspects for now.
Forget the financial aspects for now.

What I am really trying to say in all that convoluted verbage:lol: is this:

• All positions are probationary
• All positions must be filled by members who are willing to dive in and learn and be self motivated.
• All positions must be willing to put in extra time when the need arises.
• There must be a higher level of techncial expertise in the admins and the new positions of Site Programmers.

Here are the first set questions that must be answered.

• In general is the whole idea feasible.
• Between the people who are already here and new people who may be recurited can we find enough people to fill the positions with the level of time and commitment that I was trying to explain in the document.

Because if we can't then the whole idea is impractical and we are wasting our time. Then we have to find a different way to achieve our purposes and we need a different proposal

 

[SteveColes]

Under the Advisory Panel it says the the Senior Moderators (active membership will be waived in this case) - does that mean that Senior Moderators on the Advisory Panel do not have to be active members?

Sorry, I totally mistated my intent. It should have said something like this
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']"The one year requirement will be waived in this case"[/FONT]

 

[sapwood]

I think the over all concept is sound. One thing I would bring up is in the section of Forum Moderators.

Then directly under that is this section
I would argue these are "policies" of the site. I respectfully submit rewording this section to state that moderators should read each post to ensure that the post adheres to the policies of the site, set forth by the advisory panel.

It may be helpful to also list that moderator should be views by the general membership as "champions of the members", if that is the correct terminology here.
. . . .

Thanks Clay! That's accurately reflects what I was suggesting. :icon_thum
I was cogitating last nite and using the thesarus :eusa_doh: but didn't find the expression: "champions of the members". I like it!

And after quite a bit of head scratching reached the same conclusion that the "policies" of the site are already in place. No need to replicate them.

Clay, you are down right scary sometimes :lol: :lol:

Roger

 

[cskipper]

I think the plan is feasible. We have a lot of folks who are computer folks, but do we have some who will accept the programmer role? Probably. If I could have the advantage of the net-meeting kind of thing Clay was discussing I could get up to speed on more stuff very quickly. Is there a possibility we could get internet connection at the Klingspor gathering? If so, maybe someone could walk me through some info there. I could bring my laptop.

 

[Monty]

Man, oh man - that's quite a proposal. You're gonna give yourself carpal tunnel syndrome with all that typing! To answer your main questions, we can iron out the details but I think your idea is feasible. Not only that, I certainly agree that it's needed. I think some of the other 'advisory panel members' have made some good points.

When it comes to fulfilling the staff duties, I still feel that the biggest day-to-day burden of work lies with the moderators. Reading all these posts has become simply impossible for me to keep up with, so I just catch what I can and often I read so quickly that I don't even take the time to respond. However, judging from some of the issues that the mods have caught and taken care of, I would say they're doing a great job of keeping up. How can we make sure that continues? I have no idea... maybe we can discuss that if we have a net meeting.

What I'm trying to say is, I think the staff that we have are fulfilling their roles well for the most part, but that's not really the main issue. The bigger problem is those "new" staff duties you mentioned -- specifically the programmers. Thread management and even membership management is fairly straightforward, but site management and programming requires a much steeper learning curve that I'm not sure most people want to deal with. Steve has been doing all the work, and I can do it, but it's still not enough. The people who express an interest need to have enough initiative to dive into the vbulletin manual, learn about the addons, and try it out on the practice site. I can think of no other effective way to really learn this stuff. I have forum memberships at vbulletin.com, vbulletin.org, vbadvanced.com, photopost.com, and probably others that I can't think of right now. I dig out those manuals and FAQs and search those sites when I get stumped. That's what it takes to maintain and troubleshoot a site like this one (for those who don't know, I also play the role of "Steve" on another vbulletin-based site, although it's not as big as this one).

The "vision thing" is also a major point - keeping the site fresh and alive with new ideas, promotions, etc. That's where an advisory panel or steering committee really seems like a great idea. I think holding a meeting at least twice a year at the Spring and Fall gatherings would be a good starting point.


I've typed so much that I already forgot what I started posting about... :-?

 

[SteveColes]

Monty thanks, as usual you have gotten to the heart of the matter more quickly and clearly that I did.:eusa_clap(Maybe you should write the documents and I'll critique:eusa_danc:lol

 

[Monty]

We need to figure out how to light the fire and get a few more people really interested in learning the programming. It's not THAT hard to do, and it's actually kind of interesting to learn. I would be able to keep the software up to date and handle most of the customizations (although I admit that I have NO IDEA how you're doing that DQ thing). But we need at least one or two more who could pick it up and run with it if needed. Any ideas how to get that accomplished?

 

[SteveColes]

How much does the license cost? Seems like I need that to actually get anything from VB sites.

Actually, there is way for me to give 3 people access to the technical areas of those sites. I have done it for Chris. I think it is possible for everybody to see the manual and there is some good stuff in the appendixes.

On vbulletin.org the articles sections are invaluable.

 

[SteveColes]

We need to figure out how to light the fire and get a few more people really interested in learning the programming. It's not THAT hard to do, and it's actually kind of interesting to learn. I would be able to keep the software up to date and handle most of the customizations (although I admit that I have NO IDEA how you're doing that DQ thing). But we need at least one or two more who could pick it up and run with it if needed. Any ideas how to get that accomplished?

One of the things I am convinced of, is that we must not assume any one person will take of everything. That is why, I keep dividing the functions into smaller and smaller pieces. I think that at as far as the Webmaster is concerned, the duties I tried to spell out in the doc are the most that we should assume. I don't mean you can do more, just that we shouldn't assume more.

The reality is that with all the positions I have defined, no one person should have that much to do on a day a day basis. We just have to create an atmosphere that says, when you are first learning the job(first 30 days) you will have to dedicate yourself a bit and if you can't then take the job or resign. And the corollary to that is when there is something to be done it MUST be done right away.

 

[NCPete]

I have enjoyed writing some code many years ago, mostly SQL, and could pick it up again easily if it weren't for school commitments. so that will be some time away. perhaps I can look into a class, and somehow include it into my degree program? It has to be more fun than the accounting that has been kicking my butt for the last few months.

I know that when I briefly took on the admin role during the last major software change and could view those aspects of managing the site that the work was beyond what I was capable of committing to back then.

 

[Monty]

I know that when I briefly took on the admin role during the last major software change and could view those aspects of managing the site that the work was beyond what I was capable of committing to back then.

Yes, I remember - that's perfectly fine. You have been able to contribute in a different capacity that you feel comfortable with - that's just what we want.

I used to think that Steve's approach of dividing the work load would just lead to more confusion than necessary, especially when it comes to programming & customizations. At first, it did lead to some confusion as we were all grinding up the learning curve. But, it doesn't have to be that way. We can use that .info site to practice all we want, and that is really a valuable tool. IMHO, if someone really wants to learn the ropes, then let 'em load up a fresh install of the forum on that site, play around with the settings and templates, etc. Then we could practice things like installing add-ons, backing up and restoring the data, etc. Then we could wipe it all out and let someone else try it. It's a little bit of 'exercise', but I think we need to do it.

It truly is necessary to have more people who are familiar with the guts of the software so problems can be taken care of without delay. If someone truly wants to take on the challenge then go for it. I know that Steve and I will answer any questions and provide guidance along the way.

 

[NCPete]

It would be fun to learn more about those aspects of the site again, but it will be some time before I have that much time free to do spend time to relearn what has been forgotten. I look forward to the opportunity and challenge, but it is several months away before I get there.