[Community] New working group, procedures

[Kaliya Hamlin]

I like this proposal.
Regards,
  =Kaliya

On Apr 2, 2007, at 10:27 AM, Drummond Reed wrote:

> +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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Community mailing list
> Community at idcommons.net
> http://mail.idcommons.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/community

Kaliya - Identity Woman

AIM:kaliya at mac.com
skype:identitywoman
Y!:earthwaters

http://www.identitywoman.net
http://www.unconference.net

510 472-9069 (bay area)
415 425-1136 (on the road)