On Tue, 7 Aug 2007, Keith M Wesolowski wrote: > What is the source of the opposition to proposals I've made (and I > believe Ben Rockwood and perhaps others have had similar suggestions) > that open-ended efforts of this type be represented as working groups > or committees within a Community Group? Before someone jumps in with > "Needless Bureaucracy!!! Nyah!" let me emphasize that the CG could > set this up however it likes - there's no reason it needs to entail > bureaucracy. It could be as simple a thing as a group of CG members > interested in LDoms maintaining some web pages and choosing whether to > sponsor projects. In other words, it could easily be the simple, > lightweight subcommunity that people seem to want.
+1; I like the idea of fewer CGs with a broader focus, and CG-specific committees to handle stuff that doesn't fit into the Project category. A Virtualisation CG, with Xen, Brandz and LDom committees is a good example of this. > looks like right now. Perhaps we (the OGB) should think about ways > for people with newly-opened source to attract a community that could > fulfill the actual intent of the Community Group - there's definitely > a "can't get there from here" aspect to this, and I realise that's > frustrating. How about an "incubator" CG, with committees made up of these fledgling CGs and re-homed as appropriate when the time is right? -- Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OGB member CEO, My Online Home Inventory URLs: http://www.rite-group.com/rich http://www.myonlinehomeinventory.com
