[Community] New working group, procedures

[Drummond Reed]

Owen, the current policy is that a new WG with a valid charter is granted
automatically unless a current Steward objects, in which case it is put to a
SC vote w/in 30 days.

Do you have a suggestion how it can it be made more "formulaic and not open
to politics"?

=Drummond 

-----Original Message-----
From: Owen Davis [mailto:owen at idcommons.net] 
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 1:26 PM
To: Kaliya Hamlin
Cc: Drummond Reed; 'Identity Commons'
Subject: Re: [Community] New working group, procedures

My only concern with this proposal is the scope for a Steward's  
objection.

>> 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.

The spirit of the upside-down umbrella is that Stewards & the Council  
should only be able to object when a new discussion/working group  
doesn't fit within the fair and equitable criteria established by the  
Council. This approach means that the decision to approve a group is  
already made as long as the group follows guidelines; this approach  
is key to enabling self-organization.  The approval or disapproval of  
a working group by the Council should be very formulaic and not open  
to politics.

I also like the notion that garbage collection / cleanup of abandoned  
groups should be part of the process.

On Apr 2, 2007, at 10:34 AM, Kaliya Hamlin wrote:

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