Specification of leadership style
I don't see the difference between leader and facilitator as it relates to WE workgroups. Rather than suggest a distinction, maybe this section should be about defining the leadership role and provide an example. Also, I'd rename it as Leadership Role. Here's suggested text.
Indicate whether this workgroup will have a leader/facilitator and provide responsibilities for this leadership role. For example,
The XX workgroup is led by a facilitator. The facilitator's responsbilities are:
- Keep team on task
- Monitor team projects
- Provide direction for team assignments"
Any other opinions on this?
Personally --- I don't think we need to be too worried about what labels we use for this role: leader, co-convenor, facilitator, instigator ;-) etc. The trouble is that different leadership models and theories attach different meanings to these and other labels. Ideally we strive for consensus and collaboration. Some folk are natural leaders / facilitators. Each work group will have its own dynamic -- that's the open wiki model. If the charter compartmentalises too much -- we may constrain innovation and participation. My own feeling is to be a little more own and flexible on the use of labels and roles.
The charter template is intended to be a guideline -- not a policy. So we can be a little more relaxed about nomenclature -- ultimately work groups which don't bring together the right ingredients, will not complete their specified tasks -- and that's OK.
To be fair -- the initial Charter template guidelines were not developed for wiki communities (to the best of my knowledge), so we have a little liberty to be flexible :-)
I totally agree. In fact, I spent some time reading about shared/collective leadership last night. I had no idea that such a style existed. I decided last night that I'd like to redo the leadership style section to include the shared leadership option -- I was too tired to attempt it so I left a note to remind myself. I think I'll lay out a few options for groups to consider, with the upshot that there's lots of flexibility here.
I agree on the idea that many actions are self-limiting, so no need to require exact adherence to a particular process.
I've had the same thoughts about how well a charter template that likely originated in a face-to-face market-driven business world, will work out for groups of distributed volunteers working in a directly collaborative environment, as is the case in a global wiki. It's been really helpful to have the Administrators workgroup trying things out.