In the November 2020 face-to-face, we agreed that I should draft a plan for a pool of volunteer program management help. Since the next face-to-face is days away, I figured I should get this out before then. 
Before I start recruiting a few contributors to be the inaugural members, I wanted to get the Council’s feedback on the proposal.
Looks good to me. The one question I have is on the very last line — is “that function” meant to be “election duties in general” or “backup to the FPgM for election duties”?
Lookin’ good!
I think it would be nice to address mentorship in the proposal as well. For example, that could be the sole function of someone’s participation in the group. Read: I would like to be part of this to help mentor folks but cannot take on new projects to manage, how do I fit in?
It’s meant as “backup to the FPgM for election duties”.
In the short term, there is no role for “mentor but not take on projects”. I’m open to expanding to include that at some point, but I wan tot keep the initial scope more narrowly focused in order to get things started.
To expand on this a little bit after a conversation with Marie, I was thinking of this suggestion in terms of a more formalized mentoring process than I think Marie intended. As I start to spin this up, I will incorporate people who want to provide some mentorship without directly contributing to projects as “guest speakers” for lack of a better term.
Honestly excited to see this start rolling forward. I think it addresses a gap in our current community management strategies.
My thought that I am leaving out there is whether it makes sense to (lightly) tie this team into either the Join SIG (if we want to enable new contributors to participate) or CommOps (if we want to enable more experienced contributors to participate). If we can concentrate new community-building efforts in the places where we already have a base level of contributor activity, it will make it easier to pull in a group of initial champions for this team (in my view).