Talk:Sister Free Geek - Revision history

Rfs: Bumbershoot

2005-01-20T03:16:07Z

Bumbershoot

192.168.254.89: assessing "too bigness", pros and cons, specialization

2005-01-19T10:57:37Z

assessing "too bigness", pros and cons, specialization

192.168.254.89: how to assess "too big", costs and benefits of sister org, specialization.

2005-01-19T10:55:12Z

how to assess "too big", costs and benefits of sister org, specialization.

New page

Hi, it's Pete here. I like this idea. And I agree that prioritizing it according to when Free Geek gets "too big" is a good idea.

Here are some factors that might influence what "too big" is:

1. Consensus is a very powerful way to make decisions, but it can be difficult with very large organizations. Is it possible that Free Geek could grow to a point where the consensus process stops working so well? If so, that might be "too big."

2. Limitations of current space.

3. (well I could only really think of two.)

Then, a sister organization offers the major benefit of an additional location, i.e. greater convenience for the public/volunteers/staff. Costs might go up though, as space and/or staff might be a bit redundant.

Also, I like the idea of sister organizations having different specialties. For instance, keep all recycling operations at the mothership, and have a sister organization that hosts most of the education programs. Keeping the mission of each organization focused might help keep each one working well.

That's my 2c.
-Pete

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:16, 20 January 2005
Line 15:		Line 15:
	That's my 2c.		That's my 2c.
	-Pete		-Pete
		+
		+	== Bumbershoot ==
		+
		+	From http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=bumbershoot
		+
		+	Main Entry: bum·ber·shoot
		+	Pronunciation: 'b&m-b&r-"shüt
		+	Function: noun
		+	Etymology: bumber- (alter. of umbr- in umbrella) + -shoot (alteration of -chute in parachute)
		+	: UMBRELLA
		+
		+	[[User:Rfs\|rfs]] 19:16, 19 Jan 2005 (PST)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 Hi, it's Pete here. I like this idea. And I agree that prioritizing it according to when Free Geek gets "too big" is a good idea.
-   Here are some factors that might influence what "too big" is:
+Here are some factors that might influence what "too big" is:
 . Consensus is a very powerful way to make decisions, but it can be difficult with very large organizations. Is it possible that Free Geek could grow to a point where the consensus process stops working so well? If so, that might be "too big."
@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 . (well I could only really think of two.)
-   Then, a sister organization offers the major benefit of an additional location, i.e. greater convenience for the public/volunteers/staff. Costs might go up though, as space and/or staff might be a bit redundant.
+Then, a sister organization offers the major benefit of an additional location, i.e. greater convenience for the public/volunteers/staff. Costs might go up though, as space and/or staff might be a bit redundant.
-   Also, I like the idea of sister organizations having different specialties. For instance, keep all recycling operations at the mothership, and have a sister organization that hosts most of the education programs. Keeping the mission of each organization focused might help keep each one working well.
+Also, I like the idea of sister organizations having different specialties. For instance, keep all recycling operations at the mothership, and have a sister organization that hosts most of the education programs. Keeping the mission of each organization focused might help keep each one working well.
 That's my 2c.
 -Pete