Michelle Olson and Jim Grisanzio wrote: >> 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.
Although there is an overlap between the existing Content Project and my proposal, I'm not sure it is a complete overlap. It seems clear that there is a requirement for a Project that focuses primarily on the website. I'd therefore suggest that we rename my proposed 'Content' project to 'Website Editorial', and that the initial Members be drawn from the existing Website Project, the Advocacy CG and the Documentation/Content Project. I'd see this group acting as a coordinator for content that was primarily generated by other CGs and Projects - for example, when there is a conference coming up the homepage content could be provided by the Advocacy CG, when a particular CG had a major event such as a release, it could provide the homepage content. And at other times we might choose to have 'Article of the Week' on the homepage, with the content (for example) being provided by the Documentation CG. Because the content on the homepage will be coming from different sources over time, I think it is important that the Project that schedules the changes to the homepage is seen to be independent from the CGs and Projects that provide the content. -- Alan Burlison --
