Difference between revisions of "Talk:Sister Free Geek"
(how to assess "too big", costs and benefits of sister org, specialization.) |
(Bumbershoot) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| 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. | 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." | 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." | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
3. (well I could only really think of two.) | 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. | 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) | ||
Latest revision as of 19:16, 19 January 2005
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
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
rfs 19:16, 19 Jan 2005 (PST)