I like the idea of having committees for any member to be on, but not mandatory ones. With mandatory participation we will lose members. I recommend creating an incentive, where members on a committee pay slightly lower dues than non-participatory members.<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 6:55 PM, Shaun Empie <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:shaun@vpit.net">shaun@vpit.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
I really like this idea as well. This is along the lines of what I was<br>
thinking in a previous email I sent. I think every member needs to be<br>
involved in the running of the coop. We could make committees like<br>
marketing, documentation, web server, email server, architecture, etc.<br>
Everyone would have to be on one. The group would work together and<br>
decide on changes and the person leading the committee could either make<br>
the changes or pass them along to an admin.<br>
<br>
Having over 100 members rely on the work of a couple volunteers doesn't<br>
seem like a coop to me.<br>
<br>
-Shaun<br>
<br>
David Snider wrote:<br>
> I was thinking more along the lines of somebody figuring out how to get XYZ<br>
> Web Framework running within our setup, writing down the steps and then<br>
> handing it over to an Admins for implementation. Not to actually re-upload<br>
> the images. It's a bit of a timesaver in that we don't have to rely on<br>
> Admins to figure everything out for us.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
HCoop-Discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:HCoop-Discuss@lists.hcoop.net">HCoop-Discuss@lists.hcoop.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.hcoop.net/listinfo/hcoop-discuss" target="_blank">https://lists.hcoop.net/listinfo/hcoop-discuss</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br>