= Use Cases =

||  '''Use Case''' || '''Leadershipship Committee proposal''' || '''Working Group proposal''' ||
||An LC member has concern about MFPL project/policy/infrastructure/strategy. ||Ideally, the concern is raised during the f2f LC meeting when the work group proposal is being discussed, in which case the LC member voices their concern and has an opportunity to influence the approval and/or amendment of the plan. If the concern happens after the plan is approved, the LC member can communicate direclty with the work group contact. If the LC members doesn't feel like the concern was taken seriously, they can voice the concern at a telphone LC meeting and if the LC agrees, an LC member of that work team can relay the concern to the team. And, it can be raised at the membership meeting when the work team reports are discussed. Lastly, the next year's LC face to face meeting can choose to explicitly adjust the work group's plan to take the concern into consideration  ||  there is no LC in the working group proposal, so this use case doesn't seem to apply   ||
||A new member (individual) wants to join a committee/team/working group. ||All work teams are publicly advertised with a point person, full contact information, and the dates/times of next meetings. All members are encouraged to join.    ||all working groups are listed publicly, with contact information and dates/times of upcoming meetings or discussions||
||An organization or campaign requests campaign collaboration/endorsement.      ||If the request is for an endorsement that requires no resources, is in the field of communications and is consistent with our statement of unity, the outreach team is empowered to sign on. Requests that involve substantial resource commitment should be endorsed by the Outreach team and approved by the LC    ||If the request is for an endorsement that requires no resources, is related to information/telecommunications, and is consistent with our statement of unity, the organizational development working group can go ahead and decide (via usual public discussion channels, and with input from other members) whether to endorse.  At a minimum, this probably will involve the i18n working group, to ensure that the organization has a clear sense of what is being endorsed in as many supported languages as possible.  Whether an endorsement is made or not, the final decision (along with any relevant discussion) should be announced in the regular reportbacks from the organizational development working group. if the endorsement or campaign collaboration requires additional work, (e.g. further i18n, technical, or design work) or financial resources, then the organization development working group should estimate what resources or work are needed (in what timeframe), from which working groups those resources might come, and confirm that those working groups are prepared to make those commitments before making such an endorsement.  If the working groups in question can't commit to the extra work/resources needed, then the organizational development working group should not endorse or commit to a campaign collaboration on behalf of the larger organization. ||