(One thing I've done in my current LGBT group, where I'm on the committee, is write job descriptions as job GOALS rather than task lists. In other words, "You do the social media - we need our events advertised in advance, and messages regularly replied to. How you do that is your own shout." Rather than have it as a set of instructions, or part of a bigger job ("this person does social media, runs Pride, and does graphic design".) - both of which are rigid)
I definitely agree with this approach.
I can't remember if I mentioned it in this series of responses, but I often refer to what I prefer as haptocracy, which is that the person doing the work (hapto is a verb for work in ancient Greek) gets to decide how it's done, within the boundaries of the goals or needed outcome.
(I may or may not have come up with that after a fit of frustration at someone insisting I do things their way, when their way was unsustainable for me, and mine would get us to the same outcome, but in a way that was much more manageable for me.)
One of my magic books recommend Coveners pay subs towards the cost of daytrips and funding a group library; that's out of the realm of "our mates take it in turns to bring snacks and buy beers".
I'm curious about which book, if you recall. That sort of baffles me, because those are also two very different things.
I am generally "Everyone pays their own way for outings, with arrangements for people for whom money is tight", and books (or other items) are tricky, because who keeps them if people leave the group or it dissolves (and where do they live)
But officialdom can also be used as a tool for ill - and is devastating when so used - so perhaps it's less of a boon than I expect.
Definitely on both - it's so complicated to find the balance. I've mostly been finding that 'document the implied structures so they're not just implied' works okay, but that focusing on 'this is a description of what we're actually doing we can refer to and edit as needed' rather than 'this is how things will be' works a lot better.
Re: Size of group implications
I definitely agree with this approach.
I can't remember if I mentioned it in this series of responses, but I often refer to what I prefer as haptocracy, which is that the person doing the work (hapto is a verb for work in ancient Greek) gets to decide how it's done, within the boundaries of the goals or needed outcome.
(I may or may not have come up with that after a fit of frustration at someone insisting I do things their way, when their way was unsustainable for me, and mine would get us to the same outcome, but in a way that was much more manageable for me.)
One of my magic books recommend Coveners pay subs towards the cost of daytrips and funding a group library; that's out of the realm of "our mates take it in turns to bring snacks and buy beers".
I'm curious about which book, if you recall. That sort of baffles me, because those are also two very different things.
I am generally "Everyone pays their own way for outings, with arrangements for people for whom money is tight", and books (or other items) are tricky, because who keeps them if people leave the group or it dissolves (and where do they live)
But officialdom can also be used as a tool for ill - and is devastating when so used - so perhaps it's less of a boon than I expect.
Definitely on both - it's so complicated to find the balance. I've mostly been finding that 'document the implied structures so they're not just implied' works okay, but that focusing on 'this is a description of what we're actually doing we can refer to and edit as needed' rather than 'this is how things will be' works a lot better.