[Still going backwards] On Jul 8, 2008, at 18:49, John Plocher wrote: > The direction I heard the board agree to in yesterday's meeting was to > draw a line around how we are doing things today (consolidations) and > to not invent something new (a mesh of peer projects). Please correct > me if I'm misunderstanding things (I'm still >1500 emails behind...)
Exactly correct. > This leaves me with two unknowns that I would like help > understanding: > > Problem 1: > > This seems to drop User Groups and SIGs on the floor. Simon (and > others?) seemed to feel that making SIGs a high level thing was > undesirable, but were unclear as to what is expected to happen to > the current CGs that are not Consolidations. There also seems to > be an assumption that something will happen to Advocacy and User > Groups, but I am unclear as to what exactly it should be. Jim? Sure, we could have a "SIGs" top-level group. Would ARC be in it? User Groups ought to be a top-level group. Advocacy ought to be a top-level group. S.
