Having the position rotate once every year or two wouldn't be bad. Or we could just have a two-term limit, with each term being a year, and if the staff think the incumbent is doing good after the first year they can grant them another year to continue with their work, although that might be overly complicated for NIWA.
Lots of things that can be done there to try and get new blood in, but still keep competent leadership.
Moving onto a next subject, and it relates to the DAWN thread:
I've gotten to know a decent amount of staff members since I've joined NIWA, so I know how they work. I haven't met everyone, but I will agree that in general the staff aren't plotting behind the scenes to try and take over the internet, and that they are generally competent.
However, my main concern is the point that was brought up about "secrecy", or the perceived imbalance of secrecy. While I can't give an opinion on what the balance is--and even though the staff can give an opinion it can't be demonstrated--my honest guess is that the problem isn't with secrecy, but with lack of clear communication.
A lot of confusing or misleading or misrepresented information is on these boards. There's also a decent amount of misinformation as well. The lack of communication to clear up these blunders is most likely what contributes to a lot of the angst and perception that "the staff are incompetent or power hungry, or that there is an imbalance of secrecy."
One recent issue that came up was presented as if a simplistic wiki was going to be made a part of NIWA in some official capacity, and it drove me bonkers (my apologies to all parties involve who I may have offended) because I believed that the decision was in the final process of being approved. It might have been best to move the thread to the Staff section, or for someone to come in and say "This matter has not yet been decided, the staff are still looking over it."
A bit of communication (or some moderation) would have been really effective in reducing confusion for me and other parties. For my part, I will now start bringing up information that has unverified legitimacy to trusted parties and get their input on the matter before I start making critical remarks, which will most likely be sent directly to the appropriate parties instead of in threads.
Do I expect this communication issue to be solved overnight? No. But I do hope that strides will be taken to promote clear communication channels between the public and staff so that issues of miscommunication can be abated if not completely avoided.
Unfortunately, from what I have gathered, NIWA doesn't have a lot of policies or procedures, so I'm not sure I can give a suggestion for how to directly correct the problem, but my best guess would be to:
1. Set up relevant communication policies. This includes setting up proper channels for fielding questions about information from the public, as well as disseminating official information to the public.
2. Either have every staff member informed (or "trained") on how to handle basic public relations, or give the job to certain staff members who can be more focused on the issue. The latter would also provide more clarity to the public in who to go for more information on topics. I will acknowledge that a lot of staff members are busy with other projects, but if a few could dedicate a few minutes a day to answering questions that would be a wonderful start.
3. As a last resort, set up an official "Public Relations Coordinator" position to coordinate communication channels so that there is a dedicated staff to the issue. This idea is likely to be excessive for NIWA, but if set up properly could be very useful in not just giving clear information out to the general public, but in helping to coordinate projects with the member wikis and work with affiliates or interested parties.
