Michelle Olson wrote: > I've added a summary of the simplification I've been thinking about to > the wiki page above. I propose that rather than re-categorizing existing > groups and projects, we add a layer to the hierarchy called Steering > Committees (SCs) made up of Facilitators. Facilitators are a gap we've > not yet implemented as defined in the Constitution. Steering Committees > would be cross-functional teams where strategy and high-level > decision-making happen. Here is the hierarchy: > > SCs : 4 committees made up of the 46 CG facilitators > | > CGs : 46 currently > | > Projects : 100+ > > The 4 steering committees could be: Core, Userland, Support, and > Release.
I like the idea of giving Facilitators authority, but I'm not sure how SCs actually simplify things - especially the mishmash of 40-some CGs that overlap "ownership" of code, interest and expertise.... Part of the impetus behind the CG/Project reorg was to significantly reduce the number of high level groupings so that the limited organizational resources that the community is able to apply can be more effective. Ensuring that less than a dozen Projects are healthy will be easier than today, especially if we empower/require the Facilitators to take a more active role... -John
