We would like to incentivise people to join and actively contribute to our core working groups

[matentzn]

I said in the OFOC call I would call a vote, but instead I would like to collect some ideas first.

Problem: Many OFOC members; circa half of the named members join calls more or less regularly; few are active in working groups.

The editorial working groups need more people to stem the workload. This issue is to gather some ideas on how to realise.

1. @matentzn: We can recruit new volunteers (I am confident we can, they just wont be very experienced)
2. @matentzn: We can relieve active members in working groups with defined responsibilities from their meeting chairing and ontology reviewing duties.
3. @shawntanzk: We can form a meeting preparation and ontology review committee and make it mandatory for every OFOC member to take an active role in a WG / committee of their choice (we can have an Expert WG to put all the alumni without active role whose removal from OFOC is politically sensitive).

Please add your ideas in the comments below.

[nicolevasilevsky]

Discussed on the OFOC call on 2024-04-16, and we decided to create google doc where we all can track our activity types and if you are not active, you shouldn’t get a vote.

[nicolevasilevsky]

@matentzn I think this can be closed?

Actually, we should probably keep this open to review/discuss the activity tracker spreadsheet on the next call (which is linked on the agenda)

[nicolevasilevsky]

Poll here: #2624

[nicolevasilevsky]

Per discussion on the OFOC call today, I emailed members of the Editorial and Technical working groups and gave them the option to exclude themselves from the ontology review rotation (noted in our OBO Operations Members and Duty Rotation spreadsheet).

[nicolevasilevsky]

There are currently not any volunteers to clearly document the defined roles and write SOPs for the roles and recruit for those roles.

I think this ticket can be closed? It's been discussed during several meetings.