Michelle Olson wrote: > Alan Burlison wrote: >> Simon Phipps wrote: >> >> >>> The proposal below looks good to me, especially since it also answers >>> Roy's very reasonable issues with the proposed OGB Committee. I >>> suggest the Content project also be endorsed by Advocacy since there >>> is a clear functional relationship. >>> >> >> Mike Kupfer wrote: >> >> >>> Would it work to have a Content project that is overseen by multiple >>> Community Groups? >>> >> >> Which seems eminently sensible to me. Perhaps the initial Project >> membership should be drawn from members of bot the existing Website >> Project and the Advocacy Community Group? >> >> JimG also pointed out to me that the Documentation CG already has a >> Content project [1], so there is a name clash if not also a scope >> clash. The main aim of the existing Content project seems to be to >> produce content for both 'external' articles and the website. I'm not >> sure that this is the same as my proposed Content project - the >> existing Content project seems focused on providing material, my >> proposed project is more to do with the management of any such >> content. Perhaps I should rename my proposed "Content" project to >> "Editorial"? >> >> [1] http://opensolaris.org/os/project/content/ >> >> > Hi Alan, > > We can certainly use the existing content project to fill this need, I > think it is quite appropriate. I can chirp about it on-list to see what > others think, but I do think the group would be happy to take on this > new, but familiar, territory.
I agree. It's probably best to use and leverage existing resources rather than create new stuff that could potentially confuse the issue. This would also be a good way to get docs people involved in the website as well. They have a core competency in editorial functions, which would be most welcome. Jim -- http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris
