Talk:Major Functions

There has been some discussion in email about how the function chart is broken out. Personally, it make perfect sense to me, which it should, since I wrote it. Each grouping represents a different amount of contact with the members and a set of similar duties with similar skills to be performed. But that is me speaking from a systems engineering background (with some other flavors thrown in). It isn't an organization chart, simply a way to show what things need to be done.

Apparently Conventions were invented and labled before that sort of function breakout was. And some folks can't look at functions without immediately thinking how the Departments should be set up. OK, assuming it is a more or less standardized way to breaking things up, then maybe the Major Functions page should look like the Departments page. That isn't the model I had in mind when I set it up this way, but if people can't get past one without the other, then maybe it should be done.

However three things are critical here.

• First, the Major Functions page will also be on the front page for the forseable future, so it has to look good. It also has to bee a good guide to the content of the site.
• Second, the way Departments is organized makes no sense to me (see, I'm like the naysayers, but from the other side) so I'm not the one to lay this out in the new way (or the one to try to explain it in the accompanying article(s)).
• Third, this is going to break a lot of Categories. All the associated articles will have to be realigned to match the new places they end up in.

Volunteers? (that article needs work too, by the way)

--Bill Taylor 09:12, 13 Oct 2005 (PDT)

ps. for those that just have to know, Google "J1 J2 J3 J4 J5 J6 Operations Logistics Communications". The layout I gave here is about 1-2 generations old, but that search should give you the current way. Scan the results to get a flavor of how this is used. BT