[Community] New working group, procedures

[Drummond Reed]

+1. OASIS has the model where members can request a mailing list explicitly
for discussion of a proposed new Technical Committee. If the discussion is
favorable, the TC goes on into formation.

We could follow a similar model here, but -- as with all things IC -- as
lightweight as possible. How about the following workflow?

1) Proposer(s) of new WG use the wiki to draft and post a charter. The
charter indicates whether the status is "discussion group" or "working
group". Discussion groups do not have Steward's Council representation.

2) Proposer(s) send an email to the Community mailing list with a link to
the charter and requesting a new mailing list.

3) If no Steward objects within 15 days, the request is granted and the list
is set up. If any Steward objects, the question is put to a vote of the
Steward's Council within 30 days of the posting of the request.

4) If the status of the list is "discussion group", at any time the
proposers can amend the charter to change the status to a WG. This repeats
the process above.

=Drummond 

-----Original Message-----
From: community-bounces at idcommons.net
[mailto:community-bounces at idcommons.net] On Behalf Of Eugene Eric Kim
Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2007 11:55 PM
To: 'Identity Commons'
Subject: Re: [Community] New working group, procedures

Drummond Reed wrote:
> +1. Every WG should have its own mailing list if it wants it. Chartering
> the WG, revising the charter, or any other major news involving the WG
> should be sent to the Community list.

Drummond, what Joaquin is proposing is that anyone who _proposes_ a
working group gets a mailing list.

I think we can borrow from the Apache model.  Apache has the notion of an
incubator, and "elders" from the community act as mentors to incubated
projects.  I like that model for IC, except we are in a different
situation from Apache.  Apache had a history of successful, sustainable
projects before adopting that model.  We're just getting started, and we
don't have that same history, not at the same level at least.  So it
seems a bit duplicitous to call anyone an "elder," in the sense of
someone who has fostered a successful project under (or over) the IC
upside-down umbrella.

All that said, I like the overall model, and I think we should be able to
adapt this model to fit our needs.  Thoughts?

=Eugene

-- 
=========================================================================
Eugene Eric Kim ................................... http://xri.net/=eekim
Blue Oxen Associates ........................... http://www.blueoxen.com/
=========================================================================
_______________________________________________
Community mailing list
Community at idcommons.net
http://mail.idcommons.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/community