Confirmed users
151
edits
Reps/Council/Elections/Fall2013: Difference between revisions
→Different Reps seem to have very different types of contributions. Should we make adjustments on the program based on this fact?: Added my thoughts!
| Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
==== Different Reps seem to have very different types of contributions. Should we make adjustments on the program based on this fact? ==== | ==== Different Reps seem to have very different types of contributions. Should we make adjustments on the program based on this fact? ==== | ||
* '''Nikos''': First we need to identify this diversity. Currently we have functional areas, where every Rep can state contribution areas where she/he is more interested at. We should take this one step further and make it more visible. If I want to know which other Reps contribute to Webmaker initiative I should be able to find out and communicate with them in an easy way. Different type of contributions often need different kind of approach. | * '''Nikos''': First we need to identify this diversity. Currently we have functional areas, where every Rep can state contribution areas where she/he is more interested at. We should take this one step further and make it more visible. If I want to know which other Reps contribute to Webmaker initiative I should be able to find out and communicate with them in an easy way. Different type of contributions often need different kind of approach. | ||
* '''Sayak''': | * '''Sayak''': I think ReMo has already incorporated the mechanism to identify different contribution areas and allow growth witthin them via SIGs. However, one should also keep in mind that the primary definition for Mozilla Reps states that a Mozilla Reps are the volunteers who can be the official representatives of Mozilla in their region/locale and be able to support their local communities better. So no matter what their primary domain of contribution is they should always be able to take that one step ahead into promoting the Mozilla mission wherever necessary. Keeping this in mind we can think about ways in which we can improve the SIGs to beeter incorporate vaarious contribution areas and allow reps to mature better in their respective domain of contributions. A few good examples of SIGs which are really doing well are the Evangelism Reps, Comms Reps and Reps Web Dev. We need to follow the model set by these, improvise and improve on them and take the idea forward with new SIGs to allow better identification and visibility of individual contribution areas. | ||
* '''Majda''': I truely believe that the reps program currently welcomes a broad scope of contributions. Being a rep isn't restricted to events or any other specific activity for that matter. This diversity is already part of the program and should be supported. That said, I would love to hear suggestions on how we can best tailor the program to suit different types of contributions, and even more importantly, it would be good to know which specific areas you think we are not supporting well-enough, and discuss ways to make it better and plug-in more resources to see them flourish. | * '''Majda''': I truely believe that the reps program currently welcomes a broad scope of contributions. Being a rep isn't restricted to events or any other specific activity for that matter. This diversity is already part of the program and should be supported. That said, I would love to hear suggestions on how we can best tailor the program to suit different types of contributions, and even more importantly, it would be good to know which specific areas you think we are not supporting well-enough, and discuss ways to make it better and plug-in more resources to see them flourish. | ||