Archive:Proposed Leadership Roles

On this page, we'll be listing some suggested (and ongoing) "official" leadership roles within the project.

1. Editor-in-Chief
2. Assistant Editor-in-Chief
3. Editorial Council Chair
4. Editorial Council Secretary
5. Editorial Council Additional Secretary
6. Chief Constable
7. Assistant Chief Constable
8. Personnel Lead (would enforce the Personnel commitment policy, below)
9. PR Lead
10. Recruitment Lead
11. Subpages Editor
12. Technical Lead
13. Assistant Technical Lead (2 to 4 positions, as many people as have root access would hold this position)
14. Technical Project Coordinator (numerous positions, as needed to do specific projects)
15. Eduzendium Chief Editor
16. Eduzendium Program Coordinator (a lot like a "faculty and program secretary" in the traditional sense)
17. Mailing List Coordinator (a lot like a "secretary" in the traditional sense)
18. Proposals Coordinator
19. Media Assets Lead
20. Judicial Council Chair
21. Judicial Council Secretary
22. Neutrality Editor (several positions, as needed to meet the workload)
23. Neutrality Ombudsman (several positions, as needed to meet the workload)
24. Topic Informants Workgroup Lead
25. Approval Management Editor (same position as before, or somebody without special powers who just nudges editors when necessary, an Approvals Champion)
26. ?
27. ?
28. ...continue the list...it will be edited, but needs your ideas...

---

Personnel commitment policy: in an open, volunteer community, committing to an exclusive position of responsibility prevents others from exercising that same responsibility. Therefore, it makes sense to require a minimum level of actual work, in order to justify holding the position. So the Citizendium will, for each position, describe modest minimums in what the community expects out of a certain leadership role. But, in order to enforce this minimum commitment policy, we need to have regular reports about what a person in a given position has done, in any given period of time. If a person in a position of responsibility simply does nothing for the project, particularly when something is reasonably expected, there should be a regular and automatic (but reviewable) process of removing the person from position. This frees the position up to be filled by more motivated people.

This policy would necessitate a person (who reports to the Editor-in-Chief on a weekly basis) on the activity (and, more to the point, the inactivity) of different people in the project, who actually removes the people from their positions of responsibility (i.e., this person enforces the personnel commitment policy) and then takes the lead in finding a replacement.

|width=10% align=center style="background:#F5F5F5"|  |}