7 Components: the Function Pages - Developers

19.3
Distributing Tasks and Forming Groups
In the next step, participants accept a variety of tasks (work packages)
and, if necessary, form work groups. Furthermore, it is advisable
to appoint responsible persons for subtasks (finances, technology,
catering, social program, content, and so on) who can help with
the coordination when there are tie-ups, contribute their professional
expertise, and keep an eye on the overall project. There are several
different models for this job. Responsibility for subtasks can change
hands in the course of the project, as is the case with moderation.
The important thing is that responsibilities are frequently defined at
certain points in time – just as in any democratic system. 26 In the
end, all tasks and responsibilities must be clearly distributed so that
the project can begin with a prospect for success.
Some proponents of self-organizational processes may object at
this point. They make the transfer of tasks dependent upon interests,
the “passion” and self-motivation of participants. When this method
is employed, tasks that are not assumed are also not delegated. It is
true that there is Torvald's principle urging to “delegate everything
that can be delegated,” but here, the explicit accent is on voluntary
assumption of tasks. Himanen goes the same route when he presents
the thesis that the hacker ethic is a new work ethic that represents a
counterdraft to the “protestant work ethic” of Max Weber. 27 Accordingly,
in self-organizing relationships, only those tasks are fulfilled
that people want to execute. Thus, it is possible that some subtasks
will initially be left undone. For a long time, Linux was to a large
extent an insular system for experts, because the needs of the “normal”
user were completely ignored. The open-source community refers
to the successes of this method, since ultimately all central subtasks
were taken on.
We cannot unfold the advantages and disadvantages of selforganized
processes here. Each individual group must decide which
principles to follow in the distribution of jobs and subtasks. It is obvious
that our conference cannot take place if central tasks are not
completed on schedule. The ideal of self-determining schedules does
not necessarily have to contradict this goal; it depends on the prob-
26 In self-organized systems, “hierarchy” develops through authority
that one has worked toward, or responsible persons are elected.
27 See Himanen 2001, who explains in detail the motivation of hackers
and free software projects.
19.3 Distributing Tasks and Forming Groups
Distributing
tasks and
forming groups
Delegating
tasks?
�
�
�
285