Talk:Point People

I think that this could be improved by having a more precise definition of the problem (which is now a little vague). Now worded as [committees]"can function poorly from time to time and a desire to increase the efficiency of our work and make it easier for everyone to know where to direct their suggestions and concerns." If you expand this into premises, both direct and tacit, I think it would look like this:

1) Committees do not function as well (read: not "efficient") as we would like --(direct) (probably good consensus on that point) 2) Some of the problems are due to communication between committees and other committees or individuals -(tacit) 3) A point person would improve communication between committees and other committees or individuals -(tacit) 4) Therefore, a point person would improve how committees function ("efficiency")-both tacit and direct, imho

Now with the following remark:

"why do we think this is important?

* stuff gets dropped because no one is responding, people feel unmotivated or burnt out at inefficient meetings, etc.   * a point person can make sure the committee is prepared to do its job & is doing its job"

You have really nested the following premises: [problem definition] stuff gets dropped because no one is responding stuff gets dropped because people feel unmotivated stuff gets dropped because people feel burnt out and point people can make sure a committee is prepared to do its job point people can make sure that a committee is doing it s job

Therefore, I think it is tacitly said: [what point persons (of the c7 kind) can do to help]

a point person would repond, or help someone respond a point person would motivate people a point person would help people from feeling burnt out a point person would make sure a committee is prepared to do its job a point person would make sure a committee is doing this job

this is, of course, a lot to expect of a person... lets look at what is written for more detail on just how this would go down:

"A point person can make sure the committee is prepared to do its job & is doing its job well. The point person would be responsible for a number of things. He/she would be the primary responder of emails and would triage incoming requests/issues (and delegate tasks if needed). A point person would prepare the meeting agenda, make sure folks are following through with projects, and keep the group focused, motivated, and efficient. If there were no need to meet, the point person would communicate this to minimize coming in unnecessarily. He/she would be the person who "officially" knows who is doing what and what's going on. A point person should NOT be the automatic facilitator or scribe at every meeting."

Deconstructed: [what the point person does, proposed by c7]

primary responder of emails triage incoming requests/issues (how? their opinion?) prepare the meeting agenda make sure folks are following through with projects (how? stick? electrical shocks? tacit hierarchy?) keep the group focused, motivated, and efficient (how? pep talks?  stick? shocks?  tacit hierarchy?)

It seems to me that many of these tasks are not practically doable without conferring authority to this person. This would be both structurally and philosophically new terrain for us. My resistance to this idea is that I think that bad feelings will arise, and it would simply be blown off. For there to be broad acceptance of this idea, it needs to be broadly shown that 1) this will not alter the power dynamic of the organization 2) it will help. I'm slightly more convinced on item 2 than 1, but both require broader discussion, specifically answering the above (noted parenthetically) hows? from above. Furthermore I appreciate Mary Kate's limited (yet still helpful) depiction of what a point person could do, btw.