this sounds very interesting to explore :)

this is an excellent discussion and I'm glad that it takes place. I personally was not sure if the 333 is still in place, and I also couldn't find it - because there is no search for that. And to find information if you don't know or forgot where it was is hard. So thx Fran for helping me out :)
Tal approached me because he would like to become a connector. What I did was, I encouraged him, answered his questions (as good as I could, mainly based on my own experience), but I was not sure if the 333 guidelines are still in place. In Tal's case he wants to build with a few other people the Ouishare community in Israel. So i told him that he finds himself already in the middle of the process of becoming a connector. We skipped, I told him about our Summits and many more little or bigger things. What I realized was that Tal was looking for someone to interact with, to connect with, and I felt that this is a critical role to be filled in itself. I remember that until today Fran is kind of my "contact" or "mentor" when it comes to asking question about Ouishare - and sorry for bothering you all the time Fran ;)
But actually I find it a very important process. And I personally like to help and support a new friend like Tal to become a connector. It is a lot about personal availability and interaction to onboard a connector I think - independent of what (s)he is doing to become a connector.
And this leads me to the next point: the various ways to become a connector. I would see the Connector as a role - a mutually inclusive rather than exclusive role. Again taking myself as an example I started by volunteering at Ouishare Fest and organizing the Agora part of the Summit in Berlin.
Then I started to organise GETD, becoming a track leader for the last OS Fest, being involved in the Backfeed experiment and now applying for becoming a member of the next OS Fest curation team. So what I want to say is: I have quite a few roles, and I'm not sure if putting everything under the umbrella of the Connector is really helpful simply because it becomes less clear what a Connector does.
Sam points to the process of being a Connector focused on community work/building towards becoming a project person or maker. And again I don't feel that we cannot or should not cover multiple roles - in the contrary - roles should be flexible and driven by e.g. motivation, need, responsibility, accountability, etc. So why not have a role of contributor (maybe another word is needed), maker, connector. When I act as a Connector I want to serve the community, connect people, connect people with knowledge and awareness. When I organise a GETD I'm acting as a connector but also as a maker/producer of the event. But I decided clearly to be not a contributor during the events.
So a question would be will it help people to have more roles - to identify/position themselves and be better recognised for what they are actually doing? Could this help also in terms of accountability?
And then last and for me really important is: community building is a personal process that involves connecting, bonding and belonging all part of a dynamic process. So we need interaction to share knowledge and we need also common language/understanding/awareness of what we are doing, which roles we are taking on, so we can communicate clearly.
Unclear communication can lead easily to a conflict of motivations vs expectations.
I hope that this somehow adds sense to this discussion and to the community development process.

@francesca and @jocelynibarra I like the proposition you made concerning access to tools! But I lack some informations of who is in charge of what in this proposition ? For exemple, who is in charge of introducing higly active members in slack ? And I'm not totally confortable with the first part of the proposition "Keep the connectors process as is" ? I don't mean we need to change it but I feel we need to be more specific (and clear) of which role is in charge of what in this process. For example, "Step 1: Future Connectors express their intent to start their 3-month take-off period, by choosing activities they want to be involved with. These intentions are shared among the Connectors group during the weekly global coordination updates;" : how do they express these intent ? what are those global coordination update and who is in ? Who share those intentions from FC? the "mentors" ? The community connector ? Who is in charge of keeping track of the timing?... I think updating the process with a cleared vision of who needs to do what when in the process could help when sometimes people fall in a loop in this process.

Another thought link to community, we don't know much of it. Is there any project somewhere to better know who we are ? some example how many people having a main job and OuiShare being just a side community / activity, how many people "using it" to have access to some jobs, networks, develop its professional connections, how many people active on one or more OuiShare projects... and having also some datas on the tools we have and their usage, how many people read and comment on loomio, how many people propose and facilitate discussions... that kind of indicators would be really nice to assess how distributed we are, and may also give inputs while working on projects or governance. What do you think ?

Hej hej @maud1
I'm working on a new flow (or system) to help us move after this discussion and the motion/decision; which I want to share late this week. Your questions are right on point, and they are meant to be addressed along others I, and other Connectors have, but a round of actions needs to exist after the questions from November, before we keep adding questions.
How fantastic, since I'm usually the one asking questions to no end jijjiij Thank you for thinking about this enough to point out improvements.

There's a higher narrative in your questions that I want to address right away, though: updating processes and systems should make things more clear, but, in my opinion, all the answers to "Who...?" should be answered with actions: whoever feels that a system could be improved, whoever knows a solution to a roadblock, whoever shows up, that is the person who should take care of things and go for it.

Of course there's the issue of peeps being paid for community work, but based on the budget decision made earlier this year, it all restarts in January, no? ( @francesca can give us a hand and clarify pls?).

Regarding your second comment– yeah, that'd be fantastic, but, to me, that's an activity made of analysis, time and reflection, and in my opinion, should be done by someone who knows what he/she is doing, and should be remunerated. I'm sure there's a few in this group who know more than I about it.
Thanks Maud!