Categories like FT PT?

yes, or something like that

now, we discussed in the group that the purpose of this was to a) give credit where credit is due, and b) allow for potential volunteer recruits to understand where they could fit in time-wise... am i understanding this right?

yup :)

This idea of equitable credit sharing is extremely challenging, as there are personal feelings involved, and I've given this a lot of thought.

I think we should have a "history of WMW" section somewhere (web site probably, or maybe a blogpost) that explains the idea of WMW, who originally shared the concept, who jumped aboard to make it happen, how the effort changed from WMW11 to WMW12, and then how the concept is being brought to life presently (using Loomio, other tech, etc.). I think there is huge value and potential to build community around sharing the full history of WMW.

HOWEVER, I don't agree that WMW has a "founder" or "charter volunteers" or any other common term. I'm sorry if that hurts feelings, I am trying to reconcile in my head that I very much felt that I had this idea myself once upon a time but never expressed it because I thought it was far too bold. So when the idea was presented in the HM4HB Facebook space, I was thrilled that it was well-received and I immediately jumped onboard to help, and never said a word about "I thought of that, too". To me, this effort is about milksharing, not credit, and I would just as soon see no names on the volunteer list. But truly, ALL names should be on the list, and their contributions accurately described.

(cont'd from vote post)
acknowledgement, validation - these are common human concerns. and when we bust our ass, regardless of whether or not we are passionate about the cause, it still FEELS GOOD when others see and acknowledge that we have put in what we did, sacrificed, etc. no one likes a thankless job, tbh.

i do also think that a "history" post or something along those lines, would be valuable, but i agree that "charter volunteers," "founder," etc are maybe a bit much.

i do think that a post, yearly, with the committee members and their tasks and category should be done to clear up the credit issue and potential-recruit-info issue. you look at the site of any non-profit, or board, etc, and there is always a page or post about the members and what their individual contributions are, so that isn't something that is abnormal.

I do not think it is necessary to have a founder nor charter members listed ..
I do think we should at least have some type of "history "
This topic becomes difficult for me .. Last year I received two separate messages via my inbox .. The messages were not very nice .. I was told that I was arrogant person to even have it mentioned or brought up that I had been the one to bring the idea to HM4HB.. I even talked to Emma at length on the phone about it .. When we got close to writing the original history , it was brought to my attention that '2' other individuals were claiming to brought the same idea .. That is just NOT true .. I expected nothing special just an opportunity to write something as to why I felt it was important to do this ( WMW) what prompted my decision to bring it to the HM4HB admin page ..
I definitely understand that it is about milksharing.. If my passions were not there that doubt the idea would have ever come to mind .. I have to say the harshness that I received via my inbox from two different committee members really hurt.. I would like just 24 hours to think about this so that I can think about my best response ..
I

I agree with Leah for very selfish reasons. I have been working in community projects such as this since 2000.. this projects are organic and have a constant ebb and flow of people. For the first time in well, 13 years, I am having to put my resume together, and it turns out.. I am not finding anybody to corroborate I have worked in the places I have worked! Because the people working at the same time i was are no longer there and nobody is credited because they are community projects that belong to the people, and naming names is seeing badly. I think its a flaw! I think there can be a balance between fairly crediting people and acknowledging their work and keeping it humble and organic and non hierarchical. So I agree the history tab needs to be expanded, and every year we need to add who worked there the previous year and in what capacity.