Hi Rich, I strongly agree with your proposal for forming working groups. As a newcomer to the Apache Community without the technical background, I have always hoped to have more opportunities to contribute to the ASF beyond participating in the community building of my own project, but often didn't know where to start. I believe the formation of working groups can provide a clear path for more people (like me) wanting to contribute to the ASF level to engage in some specific tasks, thereby making our community more vibrant.
And I think the Working Group Working Group (WG WG) is very essential. Much of its work involves how to build the community (as each WG is acting as a mini-community in itself). Moreover, I believe the WG WG wouldn't be short-lived. Initially, it would focus on defining WGs, but later on, it could dedicate itself to helping various WGs operate more effectively. I would love to join the WG WG, please count me in. BTW, I've also just come back from the FOSDEM. That was very inspiring, and I hope to contribute more to our community. Regards, Nadia -- Nadia Jiang Twitter: @jiangbonadia LinkedIn: @nadiajiang Rich Bowen <rbo...@rcbowen.com> 于2024年2月8日周四 00:22写道： > Proposed: A Working Group to help define Working Groups > > No, I’m not suggesting a top-down governance of working groups. What I’m > suggesting is a group to discuss what a working group looks like and what > kind of tools and processes we want to put in place to make sure that each > WG isn’t inventing everything from scratch every time. This also makes it > easier for folks to get involved in WGs, if they all look similar, and you > don’t have to relearn everything every time. > > Topics would include: > > * Where to we want to track WG status? I would propose that we create > GitHub.com/apache/community for stuff like this, to mirror > GitHub.com/kubernetes/community, at least in spirit, but would like to > discuss this with more people > * Define an actual data file (See > https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/sigs.yaml for a > possible template) that tracks what WGs exist, who’s involved, what they’re > working on. Or perhaps this is too heavyweight. Dunno. I just want to make > these things more discoverable > * Responsibilities. For example, I think a WG should report to the ComDev > PMC, for visibility, accountability, and to show the board that we’re > actually doing stuff. > * Membership. Who can be a member of a WG? What’s the connection between > WG membership and comdev committer status? Do we need a formal WG chair, or > is that too heavyweight? > > I imagine that the WG WG would be short-lived, although anything decided > can obviously be revisited, and evolve over time. > > And nothing here should be construed as “you can only do stuff if you stay > within these guard rails.” It’s just intended to give more structure to > people that need more structure. Clearly defining roles and hats can really > help people get involved when they see a huge tasks and no obvious way that > they fit into it. > > What do y’all think? > > — > Rich Bowen > rbo...@rcbowen.com > >
