[Board] Informational Guidelines To Help Volunteers Participate Well

[chuck child]

An addendum that I feel is worth adding, to the 10% section.

Over the years I have been involved in Penguicon, the composition of that
enthusiastic 10% has changed every year, and sometimes on a month by month
basis.   People have attacks of life, move away, or just loose enthusiasm.
New people find they are amazingly enthusiastic about something, and offer
to take that over.  Old hands discover a new passion, and dedicate energy to
making it happen.   While this month there may be 10%t making all of the
changes, over a year it may be more like 20%, or more, and over a three year
span it likely approaches 100%.

In other words, just because there appears to be an inner circle doesn't
mean that circle is closed.   The only admission price to that group is
energy, enthusiasm, a modicum of interpersonal skill, and a desire to make
Penguicon great.   We have had people attend their first Penguicon, and be
board members by their next, simply by proving they had what it took.
Penguicon will take whatever time and effort you are willing to provide, and
will repay that in kind with community, camaraderie, and congratulations.

On 7/23/07, john guest <phecda at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This is a good first graph.  Can I expand on the "difficult"
> discussion a bit, and maybe suggest some alternative wording and
> ideas?
>
> "We value our volunteers, and we want to encourage an environment
> where everyone is valued and allowed an opinion, as long as that
> opinion is expressed in a couteous manner.  However, if a particular
> volunteer's behavior and interaction is perceived as detrimental to
> the convention, or is creating internal strife, then that person may
> be asked to step down.  Being a responsible team player and having
> good communication and diplomacy skills are always highly valuable
> skills to have.
>
> "Remember that volunteers serve at the pleasure of the conchair.  It
> is the conchair's job to create a harmonious concom, and it is up to
> the conchair to select who may participate.  It is also the conchair's
> job to listen to disenting opinions, and then make decisions based on
> the discussion.  Once a decision has been made, please respect that
> decision, and that discussion on that matter is now closed."
>
> --John Guest
>
> On 7/23/07, Matt Arnold <matt.mattarn at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Board,
> >   I suggest we get this into a form that can be put on the blog and
> > the website. I've realized lately that although we talk a lot about
> > Penguicon's structure at dinners, meetings, parties-- and occasionally
> > refer to it in conversations about other things on this blog and the
> > mailing list-- we haven't been bringing it up often enough. 90% of the
> > work is done by 10% of the workers, but the problem is that looks like
> > tyranny to those who look at it and don't know better. We need to
> > speak clearly and repeatedly about how participation works and how
> > decisions are made, to make sure all of our attendees and volunteers
> > hear it. Let me know what you think.
> >
> > <hr>
> >
> > Q: What is this Q&A?
> > A: Think "Safari Guide", not "Rules". If the Safari Guide says "Don't
> > do that or the environment will eat you", the one imposing a rule on
> > you is the environment, not the guide to the environment. This is not
> > imposing rules on Penguicon from above, it's a report about how a lot
> > of Penguicon people tend to see it already. So if you are wondering
> > what reaction you will get from them if you do this or that, this
> > serves a guide which is sort of kind of accurate most of the time.
> >   As a result, this editorial commentary of advice is just a
> > <font="FF0000">draft proposal</font>. It is based on my observations
> > of internal discussions over the years, and is intended to generate
> > more participation in discussion. It is a draft because
> > <font="FF0000">it is a set of guidelines intended to follow its own
> > guidelines</font>.
> >
> > Q: What is the governance structure of Penguicon this year?
> > A: The buck stops with the Conchair, Gerald Gentry. The exception to
> > that is decisions that stretch over multiple years, or affect a year
> > that currently does not have a Conchair: Those go to the Board of
> > Directors.
> >   The Conchair's job is to make sure all the convention tasks get done
> > by somebody. He or she delegates to Department Heads (Communications,
> > Programming, Hospitality) to make sure all the tasks in their
> > department get done by somebody. They delegate to others to do those
> > tasks. It's the responsibility of the Conchair and Department Heads to
> > personally do anything that they don't delegate.
> >   The Department Heads don't need to tell the Conchair everything they
> > decide about their department, but they are trusted to use their
> > judgment about what sort of things to bother him with.
> >
> > Q: What does it mean for Penguicon to have an open process?
> > A: This basically means we care what our attendees think, this is your
> > convention, everyone can help, and we welcome suggestions and
> > opinions. That's the short version.
> >
> > Q: What, <b>everyone</b>?
> > A: Not quite. The long version is, everybody gets a chance to
> > demonstrate they're not too difficult to work with.
> >
> > Q: How difficult is too difficult?
> > A: Difficult enough that they drive off too many pleasant and
> > agreeable volunteers who <i>do</i> possess a bare minimum of
> > diplomacy. Those that are difficult will get a second chance, but
> > won't be doing it long, no matter how hard they work.
> >
> > Q: How do I make my voice heard in Penguicon?
> > A: The simplest way is to go to <a
> > href="http://penguicon.org/contact.php">this page</a> and email the
> > volunteer that seems most relevant. If in doubt, address it to
> > conchair and info. Info will route it to the correct person.
> >   The next level of access and influence is gained by showing up in
> > person to meetings and parties. When you do, be polite and assume that
> > we're all friends here.
> >   The third level of access and influence is to volunteer to do things
> > how you want them done. Try to make a habit of soliciting feedback
> > from time to time from those whom your decisions will affect. You can
> > use the mailing list and blog for this.
> >
> > Q: Do the attendees get a vote on anything?
> > A: We don't have a formal process for this. Sometimes we have straw
> > polls about things but there isn't a rule to do so. <b>If we don't
> > poll the community, it doesn't mean we don't care.</b> We're just busy
> > and we're volunteers.
> >
> > Q: Can I go over somebody's head?
> > A: If it's over the internet, the higher-ups will expect you to have
> > first approached the person they delegated to handle the stuff you're
> > talking about. At least attempt to if you can. If you're at a party
> > and the Conchair happens to be sitting across from you eating chips,
> > and his delegated person is not there to talk to, feel free to strike
> > up a friendly conversation about it. If he does anything about it
> > he'll make sure the team finds out and find out how they feel about
> > it.
> >
> > Q: I see most of the decisions, and most of the edits to the
> > Livejournal,  meeting agendas, or programming schedule, are made by a
> > small number of people. If that happens, is it still an open process?
> > A: Often they are the 10% of contributors who care enough to do 90% of
> > the work. The 90% sometimes don't know they can contribute to the
> > discussion, or they don't know there even is any discussion. The
> > process is, in principle, open, but we need to do a better job of
> > making opportunities to contribute. This means making sure everybody
> > is reminded of upcoming concom meetings, having an agenda and showing
> > it to them in advance, scheduling SMOS dinners more regularly, and
> > making our software systems easy to use. (This is my direct
> > responsibility as Minister of Communication, and I promise to do it
> > better.)
> >
> > Q: How is conflict resolved?
> > A: First:
> >   Make sure it actually is a conflict. Just because they posted on the
> > blog or mail list "hey let's do this" does not mean they feel strongly
> > about it and would take a stand for it against your opposition. Watch
> > your mindset that you are not assuming a fight in how you phrase your
> > opposition, before it's even begun. Acknowledge that it is an open
> > process in which your voice can be heard.
> >
> >   (The opposite side of that coin is to try to phrase proposals
> > tentatively, so you're acknowledging it's an open process in which
> > <i>others</i> can be heard. You know it, but do your words say it
> > clearly and often enough?)
> >
> > Second:
> >   The most important advice at the beginning is, "Assume the other
> > person is acting in good faith"! What this means is that until you
> > find out otherwise, you should begin by acting as if the other person
> > does not mean you or the convention any harm. Assume we're all friends
> > here, that they're just trying to help, that they are not drunk on
> > power, that it is not a power grab, that wording was phrased as an
> > innocent mistake, or that they are not against you intrinsically. Then
> > phrase your words with that assumption.
> >
> >   If you find out otherwise-- if it later turns out they really are
> > making a power grab, or they're out to get you personally, or that the
> > whole conversation has a fixed conclusion regardless of whether you
> > turn out to be right -- then and <i>only then</i> do you drop the
> > assumption of good faith.
> >
> >   The problem is not necessarily with what you say so much as the
> > default attitude about the other person. If you start out assuming
> > they're up to no good, the problem isn't with them, it's with your
> > mindset. If you start a fight, that makes it into a fight. A volunteer
> > can be removed from their position if this happens enough.
> >
> > Third:
> >   If there is a genuine disagreement about how things should be done,
> > and if the person who does that job hears you out but isn't convinced,
> > he or she does their job their way. They will then probably expect the
> > conversation to stop before it gets repetitious, or at least it would
> > be a good idea if they did.
> >   If it directly affects your ability to do your job the way you want
> > to do it, tell the Head of their Department.it helps your case if
> > you're <b>willing to do the job yourself.</b>
> > If that doesn't work, decide how important it is. Again, if it
> > directly affects your ability to do your job the way you want to do
> > it, go over the head of the Department Head to the Conchair-- again,
> > it helps your case if you're <b>willing to do the job yourself</b>.
> >   <b>The buck stops with the Conchair.</b>
> > <hr>
> >   This is probably woefully incomplete, but I offer it as a seed. What
> > do you think?
> > -Matt
> > _______________________________________________
> > board mailing list
> > board at penguicon.org
> > http://penguicon.org/mailman/listinfo/board
> >
> _______________________________________________
> board mailing list
> board at penguicon.org
> http://penguicon.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.penguicon.org/pipermail/board/attachments/20070723/3f8c993a/attachment.html