Jim Grisanzio wrote: >> We are trying to simplify things. Moving from 44 CGs today to a >> new order where we have 44 SIGS+Consolidatrions, 54 user Groups and >> 172 Projects gives us 270 top level things to manage. This is not >> simplification in my book. >> > > I count four groups in Simon's initial text. Not 270. What am I missing?
Not CG types, but instances of CGs. We currently have 44 CGs + 54 User Groups + 172 Projects. If we make them all top level things, we end up with 270 things at the same level. Like the Platte river in Nebraska, while it's not very deep, it is too wide to cross. > There's a part 2 still to come? John, this is far more complex than > Simon's initial draft. I prefer we work from a small core set of ideas > that articulate how things are actually working now, not a long and > complex document about how things should work. Now, we can surely argue > about how things are currently working, but my point is to keep it small > and grow it slowly as needed. The basic structure I presented is only 20 lines long. The rest is operational definitions for the terms used. Part 2 is a note about how the current community would look "after" this transform is applied. > I'm not sure we need to address some of these ideas like this above. > They are far too nebulous and lead to far too many interpretations that > don't get anything done. For right now, I'd like to see us stick to the > basics of fixing community operations and let the more grand themes emerge. What are community operations if they are not the relationships and responsibilities of the people doing things? > I don't understand the distinction between "external" for UGs and > "internal" for SIGs. Both groups do similar things. They gather people who share a common interest to discuss and better understand things relating to our community. The key difference I see is that user groups have an outward facing tendency, advocating and evangelizing the work of the community out to a wider audience. That differs from the activities of the current "non-component" CGs, which are communities built around the development of some bit of what we do or are building in our community. Security, DTrace, Distros, even the proposed power management and emancipation groups. To me, that difference in focus is important. > I'm not supportive of replacing the initial draft of the re-org > until we have fully explored working from /that/ base. Simon's base is IMO too procedural and focused on the wrong things. It "simplifies" by removing all structure and making it harder for people to do things - both directions that I feel will be bad for our community. -John
