This started off as a reply to the Technical Officer thread but as I was writing it I deemed it necessary to rather start a new one so as not to disrupt the nomination process currently underway…
I believe that the concept of splitting the roles is unnecessary for a number of reasons. As Diabolix has pointed out the Technical Officer is well within his rights and would be encouraged to delegate tasks to fellow members as he/she sees fit. Additionally, let’s not forget that it’s a constant battle to find willing members for leading positions (comms members, area admins, training officer etc).
I’ll say this for all committee positions. One doesn’t have to know the network to the nth degree. Nobody expects you to dedicate your entire life to the cause and if they do then they should be led out into the street for a public flogging with a Cat o’ nine RJ45 tails. One would merely expect reasonable participation in a role that you willing accepted/ran for.
What is needed from the committee is to lead and motivate. To apply due diligence and take reasonable care when performing ones duties. To make others believe and follow your vision with cognisance of the vision that was handed to you from the previous committee members. If you can achieve this then you are a true leader, you will be highly successful and the network will move forward.
Think of it from a business perspective, how many top executives know how to setup XYZ Service? Hardly any to None. Do they care or need to know the technicalities in order to perform their role? No. They rely on skilled individuals to perform certain tasks and provide enough information so that they may make an informed decision. In our case if such individuals are not willing to step forward and offer help where necessary, or are so unappreciated whereby they leave after a few months, then I’m afraid that this network is doomed.
This habit of reinventing the wheel every single time there’s a new panel of members has to come to an end. Long term common goals and objectives will get us to where we need to be and many more members need to be involved on a higher level for us to even stand a chance.
With the proliferation of cheap internet and vast FTTH projects underway this network is under serious threat and perhaps the only thing that will save us then is the sense of community, camaraderie and friendships that have formed over the years and the fact that the true enthusiast will always enjoy being a part of such a group. Actually now that that I’ve considered my last statement I might actually prefer a membership base of 100 or so!
I can’t agree more with this, especially the sentiment on not reinventing the wheel each time there is a committee change - something the first committee I was on was guilty of too.
It is incredibly demotivating to spend 100+ hours on something only to have the new committee completely deconstruct it in favour of moving/changing/deprecating it completely. The handover process should be coherent and the seamlessness should be more important. I realise each technical officer wants to put their own mark and spin on things, but lets do it in a more constructive and less destructive way!
I think I was saying the same thing just differently. I think continuity is also important. I’m also not sure if changing the constitution is required. I think 2 or 3 guys working with the tech officer. This creates a stability so that if one or 2 change the others know more or less what’s ticking, so things are not “traumatic”. I’m not sure what you’d call this team though. I’m going with the Tech Team. TT for short
I guess I’m just for a couple of people working on different things checking in with Tech Officer.
I’m not sure if I want to be the tech officer or one of the 2 or 3 though If I were tech officer I’d want to confirm a few names in the tech team before I’d accept the nomination.
Personally, I think that the aim of any “heavy” decision made by comms should be to give medium- to long-term direction to the group, i.e. most likely the decisions made and directions taken by comms could sometimes only realise 3-5 years down the line.
My personal view:
On the duties and the delegation thereof, the Tech Officer could not possibly manage to look after 6 000+ (1500 nodes with average 4/5 RB’s per node) as well as all the WUG services AND perform his day job, so to me it is a no-brainer that he/she would require a team to assist. The team should be people with the necessary skills to perform their duties (yes, these may possibly overlap as well), sufficient in size to easily manage the network even in the event where some members would be unavailable (be it holiday, etc), and a group trusted by the Tech officer who is ultimately responsible for the doings of the team.
The above could of course apply to any member of comms, although the other positions is by far less demanding than Tech officer.
I haven’t been long on the WUG, and as far as I have been here, our TO haven’t been around much, and the teams seems like they kinda goes on without much trouble. The TO really (in my opinion) needs to steer the high-level objectives for his these teams, and do the few things listed as his/her responsibilities (above), and of-coarse be part of the committee.
If I were tech officer I’d want to confirm a few names in the tech team before I’d accept the nomination.