In a posting, timedesk writes:
As to the role of facilitator I would like to add a different vision. By narrowing down the facilitator as a person we create a boxed in approach, which could mean lack of facilitors in the end obstructs progress. In my definition a facilitator would be anyone or any company or institution that contributes in reaching community goals, whether as sponsor, partner, coach or whatever role you can imagine. Maybe it will be even more clear to outsiders if we would not even use the phrase facilitator in the first place …
The concept of Facilitator comes from the way Nabuur organises its "villages" around a Facilitator who is at the junction between the real community and the virtual one.
I agree with timedesk that using a Facilitator to run a project corners a volunteer into a box. I will add that the box is wrongly labeled since often the Facilitator will have to take on tasks himself, that the function could overshadow the involvement of others in the project and smother their participation. Also it kind of diminish the responsibility of contributors. It is worth noting that several of Nabuur villages works well without a Facilitator.
I believe that if a group of people start to work on a project, a natural leader will emerge, or some sort of organisation. People will exchange ideas amongst themselves rather than with a facilitator. What's needed is a regular monitoring to ensure the project is not stalled.
What you say?